World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Black progressive women feel torn about Kamala Harris | Derecka Purnell

      by

      Joe Biden has announced that Senator Kamala Harris will join his political pursuit of the White House.Women of color, particularly progressives, might feel torn. Perhaps they will be excited. Harris is sharp, strategic and witty, undoubtedly qualified to be vice-president of the United States. She graduated from a historically Black college and belongs to a prestigious Black sorority. A biracial woman with Jamaican and Indian heritage, we have seen her break color barriers and shatter glass ceilings, even though poor, Black women have felt and swept the falling shards.Thousands celebrated her senate seat win and even more were captivated when she picked apart presidential candidates at debates – especially Biden. Her one-liners were unforgettable. Until we remembered that she honed those argumentative skills in court as a prosecutor, including during fights to uphold wrongful convictions.Then, there’s the fatigue. Progressives will have to defend the California senator’s personal identity, while maneuvering against her political identity. Political accession and racism go together like stars and stripes. Michelle Obama was horribly depicted as an ape. Donald Trump called Congresswoman Maxine Waters a “low IQ individual.” Just weeks ago, a congressman called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “disgusting” and a “fucking bitch.” Squad members and fellow representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib regularly experience xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racist attacks, which intensified after their statements regarding social justice. Like the rest of these women, Harris deserves safety and protection from harm. Black women, especially her sorors, will likely be her first line of defense.Yet the defense against racist, sexist attacks must not interfere with the necessary offense required to push the Biden-Harris political ticket, for people who choose to play the electoral politics game. When activists criticized Barack Obama, we were scathingly reminded how hard it was for him to be a Black man in the White House. He had significant executive power and influence to shift resources, call for legislation, and even free people from prison (which his own administration seemingly neglected). We were told to wait. Then, after eight years, we were told that too much was at stake to organize for free college, universal healthcare, the end to police and prison violence, and a clean planet. Nina Simone’s song, Mississippi Goddam, calls this “Do It Slow:”But that’s just the trouble, “Do it slow”Desegregation, “Do it slow”Mass participation, “Do it slow”Reunification, ‘“Do it slow”Do things gradually, “Do it slow”But bring more tragedy, “Do it slow”Fifty-six years since the song’s release, the time seems never to be right to push politicians towards progress. No more. No more imaginary ancestral, postmortem pleas on who died so that we can vote today. People fought and died for lots of reasons alongside voting, but most importantly, for the right of self-determination, which moderates defend for the right and dismiss for the left. No more.This generational fatigue, from Nina Simone to Nina Turner, from Fannie Lou Hamer to Cori Bush, is compounded by the political fatigue of doing progressive work around a party that undermines progressive values. Biden and Harris will be determined to prove that their beloved party has not been hijacked by “the radical left,” as Vice-president Mike Pence described today. He continued: “So given their promises of higher taxes, open borders, socialized medicine, and abortion on demand, it’s no surprise that he chose Senator Harris.” This inaccurate characterization is an unfortunate tactic that will push the Biden-Harris ticket further to the right. Together, Biden and Harris might still reject universal healthcare during the deadliest pandemic in recent memory. Together, they might promise expensive common sense “police reform” to a movement against senseless police spending. And together, they will affirm the power of the Black vote, while daring, even asking, do you really have any other choice?I am doubtful that Biden and Harris can be pushed. My hope of being wrong is greater than my fear of being right. That hope comes from the countless activists who are choosing to organize across the state and local level, who are vigorously defending democracy on their blocks and creating care in their families and communities. That hope comes from studying the Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party, who, facing impossible odds and considerable violence and no resources, decided to forge an alternative to the political establishment. Hamer asks, “Is this America, the land of the free and home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?”So many of us are fatigued from laboring to change this country and that needs to be acknowledged. If we want to celebrate Black women, let’s start there.• Derecka Purnell is a social movement lawyer and writer based in Washington DC More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump and his campaign launch scattergun attacks on Kamala Harris

      by

      Kamala Harris

      Trump campaign struggles to reconcile accusations that Biden’s VP pick was an overzealous prosecutor and that the pair won’t be tough enough on crime

      Play Video

      2:45

      Trump’s surprise as Joe Biden selects Kamala Harris as running mate: ‘She was very nasty’ – video

      Donald Trump’s reelection campaign wasted no time in targeting Kamala Harris with scattergun attacks that sought to define her as “the most liberal leftist nominee” ever to run for vice-president.
      The US president hurled insults from the bully pulpit of the White House while his campaign released an attack ad within minutes of Democratic rival Joe Biden’s announcement, following up with a media conference call and barrage of emails.
      “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Would Destroy America,” read the stark headline of one. A fundraising email made reference to “Sleepy Joe Biden and Phony Kamala Harris”.
      With 77-year-old Biden far from certain to run for a second term, Harris, now his most likely successor, is naturally more of a target than most running mates. But the Trump campaign struggled to reconcile an apparent contradiction: accusing her of being an overzealous criminal prosecutor in the past on the one hand, while suggesting that she and Biden would neglect law and order on the other.
      “She is a person that’s told many, many stories that weren’t true,” Trump, who has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims while in office according to the Washington Post, told reporters at the White House.
      Trump – who twice donated to Harris’s campaign for California attorney general – went on to assert, without offering evidence, that she supports raising taxes, “socialised medicine”, slashing funds for the military and putting a stop to fracking.
      “She did very, very poorly in the primaries, as you know,” Trump said. Harris dropped out of the Democratic primary race in December, before the first nominating contests were held in Iowa and New Hampshire, saying she did not have funds to continue.

      Play Video

      4:59

      Kamala Harris: memorable moments from Joe Biden’s VP pick – video
      The president went on to call Harris “nasty”, a word he often applied to his opponent Hillary Clinton in 2016, as he recounted her grilling of his supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
      The word came up again as he reflected on the Democratic primary. “She was very, very nasty… she was probably nastier than even Pocahontas to Joe Biden. She was very disrespectful to Joe Biden. And it’s hard to pick somebody that’s that disrespectful.”
      It was a reference to the opening primary debate in which Harris challenged Biden over his past opposition to school busing, although she also said, “I do not believe you are a racist,” and he has since made clear he does not hold a grudge.
      The Trump campaign appears to have settled on portraying Biden as beholden to the radical left as its least worst strategic option. It quickly folded Harris, the first woman of colour to be named to a major party US presidential ticket, into that narrative – and her voting record in the Senate does place her on the left of her party.
      Marsha Blackburn, a Republican senator for Tennessee, told reporters: “This has completed the leftist takeover of the party and of their radical agenda. Kamala Harris will be the most liberal leftist nominee for VP that our country has ever seen. If you want to find proof of where she has moved left, you can start with looking at her support for Bernie Sanders’ health care takeover.”
      Blackburn went on to claim that Sanders’ plan would take away private health insurance from millions of Americans and cost $32tn. Harris did imply early in the campaign that she endorsed Sanders’ Medicare for All, but later clarified that she did not favour scrapping private insurance.
      Blackburn also cited Harris’s support for the Green New Deal, arguing that it would cost jobs and be hugely expensive. Harris was a supporter and co-sponsor of the original Green New Deal resolution offered by Senator Ed Markey.
      The Republican senator added that the number one issue for “suburban women” is security. “What you’re going to see is a lot of ‘security moms’ that are all across this nation who are going to say, ‘You know what? Law and order is important to me and I don’t want a vice president who is out there marching in the streets with the BLM organisation. Law and order is important to me and I do not think felons should be voting while they are in prison.’
      “They will look at her record as a DA [district attorney] in San Francisco and say, ‘Security in our communities is important and I don’t want someone who says that they are not going to be tough on hardened criminals’.”
      But Trump campaign messaging undercut itself on this topic: it argued that in 2004, DA Harris chose not to seek the death penalty against a gang member who killed a San Francisco police officer, but it also stated she fought to keep inmates locked up in prison so they could be used for cheap labour, “championed” a law to put the parents of truant kids in jail and prosecuted a mentally ill woman who was shot by San Francisco police.
      Another Trump campaign email alleged: “Harris has endorsed the far-left’s immigration policies that are tantamount to open borders. Harris supports sanctuary cities.”
      The word “tantamount” is open to interpretation. The claim about sanctuary cities included a hyperlink to a New York Times article that was 12 years old.
      Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator for South Carolina and Trump ally, took a more measured approach, acknowledging the threat and summing up why Harris will motivate voters on both sides of the partisan divide. “Senator @KamalaHarris will be a formidable opponent,” he tweeted. “She is smart, aggressive, and has fully bought in to the Democratic Party’s very liberal agenda.”

      Topics

      Kamala Harris

      Democrats

      Donald Trump

      US politics

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      Share on LinkedIn

      Share on Pinterest

      Share on WhatsApp

      Share on Messenger

      Reuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris: memorable moments from Joe Biden's VP pick – video

      by

      Play Video

      4:59

      Kamala Harris, 55, has become the first black woman on a major presidential ticket in US history after democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden named her as his VP pick.
      From her punishing cross-examinations of Trump officials to previous clashes with Biden over racism, we look back at the California senator’s key moments in politics
      Kamala Harris named as Joe Biden’s running mate – live VP pick updates

      Topics

      Kamala Harris

      Joe Biden

      US elections 2020

      US politics More

    • 75 Shares139 Views

      in World Politics

      Belarus Election Unleashes Unprecedented Anti-Government Protests

      by

      The victory of Alexander Lukashenko in Sunday’s presidential election in Belarus was expected. It would take a certain level of naiveté to believe that any opposition candidate could unseat the strongman who has ruled over the post-Soviet state for over a quarter of a century. The institutional system of Belarus — the security services, the constitution, the courts and election officials — are firmly under the president’s control. After all, he is nicknamed “bat’ka,” a familiarly affectionate term for “dad” — the father of modern Belarus. However, the incumbent’s dire approval ratings in unofficial polling earned him another nickname, “Sasha 3%,” which has been appearing as graffiti across cities, on homemade signs and t-shirts (as a portmanteau with the Russian word for “psychosis,” ПСИХ03%.)

      Those in Belarus who were visibly ready for change took to the streets already in the run-up to the election. Complaints over economic stagnation have been perennial, but these are more apparent in this period of a global financial crisis. The people of Belarus look to neighboring Poland and its vast social services programs with some envy, even though the government of Andrzej Duda has just faced its own headline-grabbing election.

      What’s Going On in Belarus?

      READ MORE

      Belarusians are also frustrated with Lukashenko’s approach to COVID-19. He did not mandate a national lockdown, allowed the continuation of sporting events with crowds in the stands, stating that vodka, banya (sauna) and tractor work in the fresh air acted as protection, and called proactive measures “a frenzy and psychosis.” Still, the virus found its victims, with over 69,000 infections and 592 deaths to date. Lukashenko himself claimed he survived the virus.

      Public Anger

      The protest movement that brought massive crowds onto the streets before the election is unique in many ways. Its leader, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a teacher and interpreter, is not a politician by trade. She registered as an independent candidate after her husband Sergey, a presidential candidate running against the incumbent, was arrested and jailed by the authorities. The mother of two said her decision to continue her husband’s campaign was done “out of love” for him.

      The rise of a female politician — in fact, all three challengers to Lukashenko’s presidency were women — exposed issues rooted in misogyny. While stating his overall respect for women, Lukashenko expressed the opinion that a woman was not prepared to lead a country like Belarus because its “society is not mature enough to vote for a woman,” only to add that any theoretical female president would “collapse, poor thing.” These sentiments were echoed by reports that female political challengers typically face threats of sexual violence, assault and state intervention into their families.

      Tikhanovskaya stated that she indeed was on the receiving end of such intimidations and sent her children abroad in fear they would be taken from her and placed in an orphanage. (In a video released following her disappearance the night after the election, Tikhanovskaya, visibly distressed, mentions children again, saying she hopes no one ever faces the choice she had to make, suggesting pressure.) But even despite these threats, Maria Kolesnikova, a member of the campaign team for another detained opposition figure, Viktor Babariko, and Veronika Tsepkalo, the wife of former Belarusian ambassador to the United States, Valery Tsepkalo (another barred candidate), joined forces with Tikhanovskaya and led the rallies.

      These eruptions of public anger were the largest and most prolonged since the demonstrations over the so-called law against social parasites, which mandated that those who work less than six months a year compensate the government $250 for lost taxes, forced a U-turn. Tens of thousands took to the streets of Minsk at the end of July, with momentum spreading to other major cities like Brest, Gomel, Grodno and Vitebsk. In the capital, some 63,000 people attended a pro-Tikhanovskaya rally in what some suggested could have been “the most massive political rally in Belarus history” not seen since the 1990s. However, Belarusian law enforcement and security services wasted no time in making numerous arrests.

      A recent event demonstrated just how unprepared the Lukashenko administration is to counter such a vast protest moment. Days prior to the election, the government planned a music fest in central Minsk to bolster support ahead of the election. Some 7,000 protesters organized on social media and showed up to the event with the intention to disrupt it. In a show of solidarity, sound engineers Kiryl Halanau and Uladzislau Sakalouski played the song “Changes!” by the Soviet rock band Kino, one of the anthems of the final years of the USSR, followed by chants of “Long live Belarus!” from the crowd. Halanau and Sakalouski were consequently arrested and convicted to 10 days in jail, but the incident showed that the police struggled to cover all protest locations at all times.

      No Peaceful Exit

      Once the electoral commission announced that Lukashenko had been reelected with 80.23% of the vote compared to 9.9% accrued by Tikhanovskaya, the streets of Belarus filled with voices of discontent yet again. No one accepted these results as legitimate, and Tikhanovskaya even points out there were cases in which she led by 70%-90% at certain polling stations. In fact, Tikhanovskaya considers herself the winner, though she does not seek power. Rather, her ideal situation includes talks between a unified opposition and the government so that Lukashenko can have a peaceful exit from power.

      Even before the polls closed, military and police vehicles were on display throughout Minsk, with law enforcement and security services cracking down as protests began to spark across the capital and beyond. While the use of rubber bullets and flash grenades is in line with Western policing measures, as seen in the protests that have rocked the United States recently, but the limits of acceptability in one jurisdiction do not necessarily apply in another.

      Over 3,000 protesters were arrested, with the Belarusian authorities reporting 39 police and over 50 civilian casualties, including one death, which the Belarusian Ministry of Health slammed as “fake news.” The Belarusian Association of Journalists reports over 50 instances of detention and beating of journalists since August 4, and an internet blackout has been imposed as the clashes began on Sunday night. In the meantime, Belarusian state TV streams footage of badgers and other forest-related activities.

      Embed from Getty Images

      So, where does the Belarusian protest movement go from here? The organizers have stated that they are committed to long-term protests. It will be interesting to see how all these plans unfold, given the severity of the government response. Tikhanovskaya has already fled to Lithuania, issuing what appears to be a forced statement calling for an end to violence, following her detention at the central electoral commission office on Sunday. Lukashenko has vowed to quash any and all opposition protesters. As usual, the president claimed the protesters were “sheep” manipulated by foreign powers and entities who did not know what they are doing, claiming many of them were high on drugs and drunk. The 65-year-old authoritarian went on to assert that “We will not allow them to tear the country apart.” This sentiment should be juxtaposed with a protester who told a member of law enforcement in the midst of protest: “You are humans! You are also Belarusian!”

      It is difficult to determine exactly who wants to tear the country apart when the opposition movement states its intended purpose is to produce a viable future for Belarus. Lukashenko shows no intention of resigning or even lending an ear to complaints espoused by the people. If the protest movement is to continue, one should expect more arrests and detentions. 

      Belarus finds itself in a political crisis that must be managed with the utmost care. Neither side seems willing to budge on its demands, and so it comes down to who has the most endurance in terms of power and energy. Lukashenko has the power of government and its vast repressive apparatus at his disposal. The protest movement is energized and full of voices that have united in the sole goal of a change of leadership. Alexander Lukashenko cannot afford to make concessions as it would mean his hold on the presidential office is shaky. As it currently stands, even if this round of opposition is quashed, it will undoubtedly emerge again, perhaps at a time when the authorities may be ill-prepared.

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

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Unions demand US government take charge over 'inexcusable' PPE shortage

      by

      A large coalition of labor unions and climate action groups have petitioned the US health and homeland security departments to take over the manufacture and distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE).The unions, including the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers and the Amalgamated Transit Union, represent more than 15 million workers, from nurses to flight attendants to nannies. The administration is required to respond within 15 days.The groups could sue if they do not receive a response.Healthcare and other frontline workers have experienced rolling shortages of gowns, gloves and critical N95 face masks since March, when the Covid-19 pandemic broke the global supply chain for such products. Healthcare workers could make up between 10 and 20% of total Covid-19 infections, the petition said, citing previous health authority estimates.“It’s terrifying to risk your life every day just by going to work. It brings a lot of things into perspective,” said Rick Lucas, the president of the Ohio State University Nurses Organization and a nurse Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.“I’m not going to give up on protecting my patients, even though it’s clear the federal government has basically given up on protecting us,” he said. “More than 100 of my coworkers have tested positive for the coronavirus, and many of those positive tests were due to occupational exposure because of lack of PPE. This is inexcusable.”Although PPE supplies have rebounded for large hospitals and long-term care homes, supply chains remain fragile, with periodic shortages accompanying surges of Covid-19 cases in the US. At the same time, independent doctor’s offices have struggled to obtain these supplies at all, as distributors allocate limited supplies to the most critical facilities.Health experts and industry leaders have predicted PPE shortages could persist for years without government intervention. They also said there is no end in sight for emergency conservation measures, which have pushed nurses to use the same N95 masks for a week at a time.The petition, drafted by environmental lawyers and signed by unions, calls on the administration to deploy the full powers of the Defense Production Act (DPA) using an emergency rule-making process. The wartime law allows the US to mandate manufacturers fulfill government contracts first, to make masks, gloves, gowns and other equipment to protect workers from Covid-19.Donald Trump delegated DPA powers to health secretary Alex Azar and acting homeland security secretary Chad Wolf in March. The groups claim neither has used the act sufficiently to remedy the gear shortages.The Trump administration abdicated responsibility for the manufacture and distribution or PPE to states, which has exacerbated shortages as states and institutions compete amongst one another.Demand for PPE is expected to grow again in the coming months, with the potential for Covid-19 to surge during winter months, and as some states with active infections try to push schools to return to in-person instruction. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump unveils new Covid adviser who backs reopening schools

      by

      Amid increasing public clashes with his top public health advisers on the pandemic, Donald Trump appears to have turned to an academic whose views on swift reopening in the face of coronavirus mirror his own.On Monday, the president said that Scott Atlas, a healthcare policy expert at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, “will be working with us on the coronavirus”, adding that Atlas “has many great ideas”.Atlas appears to be more in tune with Trump’s thinking on the virus after the president publicly criticized both of his top pandemic officials, Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci, over concerns they raised about the disastrous spread of Covid-19 in the US and the danger of allowing students to return to school.In June, Atlas said the idea that schools could not reopen after the summer break was “hysteria” and “ludicrous”. The new White House adviser has also called for college football to resume – a favored move by conservatives – despite a surge in virus cases in many states.“The environment of college sports is very sophisticated, it is controlled, there is accountability. The athletes couldn’t get a better and safer environment,” Atlas told Fox News earlier this week.“Young people that age, without a co-morbidity, have virtually a zero risk from this. The risk is less than seasonal influenza. There is such fear in the community, and unfortunately it’s been propagated by people doing sloppy thinking and sensationalistic media reporting.”Atlas, who has an MD degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine, has previously provided healthcare policy advice to various businesses and presidential candidates, including Trump ally Rudy Giuliani. He has taken his services abroad, too, advising the World Bank and academics in China.While young, healthy people appear less likely to suffer badly from coronavirus than older people, they can still spread it to others while asymptomatic.Young people themselves are also not immune to severe effects – a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that around a quarter of young adults do not recover from the virus for several weeks.Covid-19, the study states “can be prolonged, even in young adults without chronic medical conditions, potentially leading to prolonged absence from work, studies or other activities”.A separate study by UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospitals has found there has been a surge in hospitalizations among young people, most likely caused by Covid-19.Despite this, the Trump administration has urged schools to reopen as normal, in some cases threatening financial support if they fail to do so. College sports have also been targeted by the administration, with Vice-President Mike Pence tweeting “America needs college football” this week. More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      A Double Twist in Russiagate

      by

      The New York Times never tires of finding new pretexts to repeat the same message. Its journalists have been regularly updating it with the same lack of substance over the past four years. The latest iteration, published on August 7, bears the title, “Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says.”

      In the very first sentence, the author, Julian E. Barnes, presents it as breaking news, the release of a “first public assessment” of a never-to-be-doubted source: “intelligence officials.” The intelligence revealed turns out to be little more than confirmation of the theme familiar to Times readers: “that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President [Donald] Trump.”

      The NY Times and Elon Musk Deal With Bolivia

      READ MORE

      In their vast majority, Times readers are anti-Trump and mostly lifelong Democrats. For a moment last year, The New York Times seemed to admit the failure of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election to validate its favored thesis. In March 2019, The Guardian sensibly published an op-ed with the title, “Enough Russia: after Mueller, it’s time for Democrats to focus on America.” Its subtitle read: “With this distraction finally out of the way, it’s time to deal with issues that the majority of the electorate actually cares about.”

      Now, 18 months on, The Times, faced with the serious task of getting Joe Biden elected and defeating Trump, cannot avoid returning to its past habits. Still, to keep a stale story alive and make it look like news, something new had to be added. It needed a twist. Senator Angus King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed the scoop. It isn’t just Russia. It’s also China and Iran. In other words, Russiagate on steroids.

      The senator framed it by saying that William Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “has basically put the American people on notice that Russia in particular, also China and Iran, are going to be trying to meddle in this election and undermine our democratic system.” King spoke in reference to a statement made by Evanina on August 7 regarding the release of an intelligence report over foreign interference in this year’s US presidential election.

      Here is today’s 3D definition:

      Undermine:

      Call into question the political credo all upstanding citizens of a powerful nation are required to recite and adhere to because failure to affirm their faith would endanger the complex political systems, potentially causing it to implode

      Contextual Note

      Any serious journalist with a sense of logic should question King’s reasoning when he asserts that foreign powers are “trying to meddle in this election and undermine our democratic system.” After all, in the age of social media, anyone and everyone can try to meddle. Trying doesn’t imply succeeding. But the jump from “meddle” to “undermine” poses a more fundamental logical problem.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The three foreign nations cited — Russia, China and Iran — certainly have the capacity to meddle. Everyone does. That reality existed even before social media. Furthermore, meddling is what all reasonably solid national structures are expected to do. Why else would they have intelligence services? What does the CIA do?

      But can they undermine? That requires more than simply trying to meddle. Undermining means hollowing out the ground below to destabilize the structure. It requires means that go well beyond spreading rumors and publishing lies. For the past four years — as The Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted in private — there has been no causal link established between Russians “trying to meddle” and the effective undermining of American democracy. Publications that encourage the belief that meddling is tantamount to effective undermining are guilty, at the very least, of faulty logic.

      The real irony in this attempt to produce new scoops with stale news is that the real scoop of this entire four-year drama emerged two days later. On August 9, a whistleblower, Steven P. Schrage — a former White House, State Department and G8 official — came forward in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News to put the entire Russiagate narrative in a new perspective, essentially validating President Trump’s thesis known as “Spygate.” Although Fox News can legitimately be suspected of pro-Trump bias, this is an important emerging story covered by the respected investigative journalist, Matt Taibbi.

      At the end of the Fox News interview, Schrage makes this interesting comment: “This is about officials undermining our democracy and it needs to be known long before the election.” If what he describes is true, this is not a case of meddling from afar but, as he says, actively undermining the workings of US democracy from the inside.

      Historical Note

      The latest intelligence report that The New York Times used as the basis of its story attempts to create a new historical perspective. Building on the belief embraced by the Democratic Party for the past four years that there is a secret link between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the intelligence community now adds China and Iran to the list of meddling nations.

      The designation of three villains may harken back to George W. Bush’s 2002 strategy when he launched the trope of a three-pronged “axis of evil.” It worked for President Bush on the eve of his invasion of Iraq in 2003. It led to the successful multiplication of unsuccessful wars in the Middle East, a fact that has dominated the trajectory of US history ever since. Because the uncertainty of facing off against a single enemy entails the risk of losing — a humiliation the US endured in Vietnam — having three enemies to choose from strengthens the case of a power that wishes to project its strength, fearlessness and unparalleled spirit of domination. 

      As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, Bush had demonstrated his keen awareness of having at least one identifiable enemy when he said, in his inimitable style: “When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.”

      Following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, under the Clinton administration, the US no longer had an identifiable enemy. Bush provided three in 2002. The IC now wants to make sure that we have three today, with China replacing North Korea, a nation with whom Trump seems to have made some kind of peace.

      The intelligence community’s report is embarrassingly vague on all its findings. But that doesn’t seem to bother The Times. We read, for example: “They may also seek to compromise our election infrastructure for a range of possible purposes.” A sentence relying on “may” can be logically extended to state the opposite with the same degree of truth: Then again, they may not.”

      The Time mentions that the report “was short on specifics, but that was largely because the intelligence community is intent on trying to protect its sources of information.” Who needs specifics? And there is a noble intention of “trying to protect” sources. “Trying” is like “may.” It admits of its opposite.

      The Times itself acknowledges the lack of substance in the report. “Outside of a few scattered examples, it is hard to find much evidence of intensifying Chinese influence efforts that could have a national effect.” This sudden critical acumen may be due to the fact that the intelligence community finds that China would prefer meddling in favor of Joe Biden, assessing that “China prefers that President Trump … does not win reelection.” The Democrats should be alarmed. What would happen if Biden were to win the election and the Republicans spent the next four years complaining that it was all due to Chinese meddling?

      The article is filled with sentences containing the verb “try.” “Russia tried to use influence campaigns during 2018 midterm voting to try to sway public opinion, but it did not successfully tamper with voting infrastructure,” The Times reports. And what about “nevertheless” alongside “could try” in the following sentence? “But nevertheless, the countries could try to interfere in the voting process or take steps aimed at “calling into question the validity of the election results.”

      If anything, the report makes clear that the intelligence community, like The New York Times, is “trying” very hard to get across its message. It is easy to identify its targets. As Matt Taibbi notes, “The intelligence leak claiming Russia supported Bernie Sanders over Vice President Biden in 2020’s critical Nevada Democratic caucuses, shows how our national security powers could just as easily be deployed against Democrats as against Republicans.”

      Steven P. Schrage perhaps deserves the final thought: “Nothing excuses foreign meddling in U.S. elections. Yet it is hypocritical and absurd to use that as an excuse to hide abuses by U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, and political officials against our own citizens.”

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

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