From coronavirus to race to the economy, Wisconsin is a
microcosm of the forces roiling America
An
early voting sign encourages Milwaukee residents Tuesday to
place their ballots before Election Day in Wisconsin. (Darren
Hauck for The Washington Post)
Four years ago, the Wisconsin state
fairgrounds were a scene of celebration. The nation’s
newly elected president, Donald Trump, stood amid
red-bauble-bedecked Christmas trees and regaled
thousands of supporters with tales from the night
Wisconsin propelled his improbable victory.
Today, the grounds are host to a field
hospital for treating coronavirus patients, row-upon-row
of stark white beds to accommodate overflow from the
state’s beleaguered medical centers.
Outside lies a suburban Milwaukee community
that had been in the midst of a renaissance — until the
novel coronavirus took hold. Restaurant owners endured
whiplash as the rules of reopening were fought over in
court. Police officers relived the memory of patrolling
a nearby city, Kenosha, as buildings were set aflame.
To the east are a sea of blue signs for former
vice president Joe Biden. To the west, it’s all Trump.
In between — in the shadow of an idled Ferris wheel —
voters wait to cast ballots in lines that stretch around
the block.
To understand the forces roiling American
politics this year, there’s one state that seems to have
them all. Wisconsin has one of the nation’s fastest
growingcoronavirus infection rates. It has a
government wracked by toxic division alongpartisan lines. Its top court is
dominated by conservatives quick toside with Republican legislators. Its
election system is under scrutiny and has already
faltered. One of its largest cities has become a byword
for racial injustice — and for deadly riots.
It’s the 2020 election in microcosm. So it’s
only fitting that Wisconsin may be the state that
decides the nation’s destiny next month.
Voters cast their ballots
during early voting in Wisconsin at the Clinton Rose
Senior Center on Tuesday in Milwaukee. (Darren Hauck
for The Washington Post)
“Wisconsin,” Chris Walton, chair of the
Milwaukee County Democrats, said, “is one-stop shopping
this year. We’ve got it all.”
But what it all means varies dramatically
depending on geography. From the bustling lakeside
shores of Milwaukee to the endlessly green dairy farms
of the countryside — with a tangle of towns and suburbs
sprinkled in between — Wisconsin has more than its share
of ideological bubbles and battlegrounds.
“The country is divided and so are
Wisconsinites,” said Reid J. Ribble, a former Republican
congressman who represented the state’s northeast for
three terms. “You drive through any part of rural
Wisconsin and there are thousands and thousands of
Trump’s signs. They’re everywhere you look. But if you
get into the suburban or urban areas, you see that same
level of energy on the Biden side of things.”
Wisconsin is a key
battleground state for Republicans and Democrats, with
supporters showing their support Sept. 25 in Fond du
Lac, Wis. (Darren Hauck for The Washington Post)
A Biden flag decorates a
pole in Kenosha, Wis., on Sept. 3. (Carlos Javier
Ortiz for The Washington Post)
In Walton’s world, it’s a blue bubble: The
32-year-old said he doesn’t know any undecided voters.
AD
Throughout the county — but especially in the
city’s African American neighborhoods, he said — voters
have made up their minds about Trump’s presidency.
They’re determined to end it, four years after depressed
turnout among Black voters helped Trump toskate past Hillary Clintonin
Wisconsin by the barest of margins — less than
1 percent.
“People are mad. They’re mad with the
white-hot heat of 1,000 suns,” said Walton, who is
Black. “The last four years have been a disaster.”
Stacy Clark, a 29-year-old Biden campaign
volunteer, has no trouble enumerating the reasons, many
of which hit close to home in a city that is among the
country’s most racially segregated.
There’s the pandemic that hasdisproportionately
impactedBlack communities, including
in Wisconsin. There’s the brutality of policeshooting
a Black manin the back seven times
in nearby Kenosha. There’s the president’s dalliance
with white supremacists and armed right-wing groups, of
which the state has its share.
Demonstrators protest the
police shooting of Jacob Blake outside the Kenosha
County Courthouse on Aug. 25 in Wisconsin. (Joshua
Lott for The Washington Post)
“There’s just so much,” said Clark, who works
in nonprofit community health care. “This president,
since day one, has really amped up people to vote
against him.”
On the other side of the state — in
predominantly White, rural areas of the state’s
northwest — views of Trump are a mirror image.
AD
Polk County — population 44,000, hard on the
Minnesota border — was once a presidential battleground,
with Barack Obama coming within a few hundred votes of
winning there in 2008.
Eight years later, Trump triumphed nearly
two-to-one. If anything, local Republican chair Alan
Walker predicts, the vote will be even more lopsided
this time.
“I’ve talked to people who have never voted
before in their lives. But they’re going to vote for
Trump this time,” Walker, a retired agronomist, said.
A police officer takes a
photo of a couple before Vice President Pence arrives
at a “Make America Great Again” campaign event outside
Weldall Manufacturing on Oct. 13 in Waukesha, Wis.
(Joshua Lott/The Washington Post)
The reasons are many: In a community populated
by antiabortion Christians, there’s appreciation for
Trump’s three conservativeSupreme
Court picks. There’s respect for the hard-line law
and order stance he took after proteststurned
violentin Kenosha and, even closer
to home, Minneapolis. And there’s the sense — strange as
it may seem — that Trump understands the struggles of
Wisconsinites who work the land for a living.
AD
“Here is this guy from New York who probably
knows as much about farming as I know about real
estate,” said Cris Peterson, who runs a dairy farm in
another northwest Wisconsin county, Burnett. “But he
knows that farming is the backbone of this country.”
Although the Trump years have been turbulent
for many farmers — anddisastrous for some—
Peterson said “things are looking up” on her family’s
1,000-cow farm.
That’s despite the fact that the coronavirus
pandemic dealt the dairy industry a grievous blow this
year, with schools and restaurants canceling their
contracts and farmers dumping milk rather than putting
it on an already saturated market.
Peterson said Trump’s handling of the pandemic
was not to blame.
“They accused him of doing nothing. I don’t
know how he could have done more,” she said. “Hindsight
is 20/20. Who knew it was going to besuch a big deal?”
Trump supporters gather
outside the Kenosha County Courthouse and argue with
counterprotesters Sept. 1. (Joshua Lott for The
Washington Post)
Many in Wisconsin are only finding out now
just how big a deal the coronavirus really is. Average
cases are up 40 percent this month, deaths have more
than doubled and hospitalizations are setting records
daily — pushing the field hospital at the fairgrounds
into service. Nationwide, only theDakotasand
Montana have faster growing outbreaks.
AD
Although cases have still been somewhat
limited in the northwest, other rural areas of the state
are now getting hammered after earlier waves of the
disease passed them by.
Yet attitudes toward basic prevention remain
as polarized as the state’s politics. While masking and
social distancing are common in urban centers such as
Milwaukee and Madison, they arefar less pervasive elsewhere.
“In the more rural parts of Wisconsin, you
drive by taverns and other meeting spots and they’re
just packed on a Friday night,” said Katherine Cramer, a
politics professor at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison.
A bridal party uses the
crosswalk as cars drive through downtown La Crosse,
Wis., on Oct. 17. (Lauren Justice for The Washington
Post)
It’s a disconnect fed not only by national
politics — with the president disdaining mask use, even
afterhe got sick himself— but
also by divisions at the state level.
While Gov. Tony Evers (D) has sought to take
an aggressive stance to beat back the coronavirus, with
business restrictions and mask mandates, the
Republican-dominated legislature has often blocked his
efforts. And it has relied on a conservative state
Supreme Court for help.
AD
In April, the court overrode Evers’s attempt
to halt in-person primary voting, yielding an election
in which peoplestood in line for hoursto
cast their ballots during a pandemic. A month later, the
court, at the legislature’s urging, struck down the
governor’s stay-at-home order.
The ruling was cause for celebration among
many restaurant and bar owners, who gleefully reopened
after a two-month shutdown.
But not for Kirk Bangstad. The owner of the
Minocqua Brewing Company in the state’s scenic
Northwoods had never been political before. But the
court’s rulings struck him as reckless. He reopened
cautiously — outdoors, with servers wearing masks — even
as other restaurants in bright red Oneida County swung
their doors wide with few or no restrictions.
Bangstad said the area is now feeling the
consequences, along with much of the rest of the state,
as the death count rises.
“This could have been brought under control,”
he said. “But instead, Wisconsin is a hot spot. And we
will be for the foreseeable future.”
A sign encouraging voters
is displayed Sept. 25 in Oshkosh, Wis. (Darren Hauck
for The Washington Post)
Bangstad was so angered by the heedlessness he
saw among Republican politicians that he decided to run
for the state assembly, though he gives himself little
chance. He has also hung a vast Biden-Harris campaign
banner on the restaurant, now shuttered for the season.
AD
Bangstad said he has been surprised by how
much support he has received, though he said he has also
endured abuse.
“We’re super amped up in Wisconsin,” he said.
“There’s such virulent hatred on either side.”
The heightened tension reflects the stakes: A
Washington Post average of polls shows Biden eight
points ahead in the state. But Clinton was also ahead in
Wisconsin polls, and should Trump pull out another
surprise, the loss of the state’s 10 electoral votes
could be fatal to Biden’s chances.
Whether that has happened is unlikely to be
known on election night. State law does not allow early
or absentee ballots — of whichmore than 1 millionhave
already been cast — to be counted before Election Day.
Republican legislators have blocked attempts to change
that.
That makes Dan Devine nervous.
The nonpartisan mayor of West Allis — the city
where the state fairgrounds are located — has been
heartened to see the eagerness with which voters have
lined up to cast their ballots in recent days. He just
wishes officials could get to work counting them so the
state that best embodies this peculiar election year
doesn’t leave the nation waiting to find out what it has
said.
“People are turning out, which is great,”
Devine said. “But we don’t want to bethis year’s Florida.”
Voters take to the polls
during early voting in Wisconsin at the Frank P.
Zeidler Municipal Building on Tuesday. (Darren Hauck
for The Washington Post)
Hunter
Biden’s business career, such as it is, is another matter.
Whether or not there has been a quid pro quo – in Ukraine,
China, Russia or anywhere else – there is the appearance of
conflict of interest. Hardly any aspect of Hunter Biden’s career
has been without it, from his job with a bank headquartered in
the state his father represented in the Senate, to his
appointment by George W. Bush to the board of AmTrak, to his
globetrotting enterprises as an alleged peddler of multimillion
dollar ‘introductions’. The business partner who advised him not
to sit on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma was
Chris Heinz, the ketchup heir and John Kerry’s stepson. Are
these scions doing anything beyond trading on their family
names? Perhaps, but they are certainly doing a bit of that too.
If Hunter Biden, as the alleged emails indicate, kicks half his
money ‘to Pop’, he’s just being a loyal son. When Hunter’s older
brother, Beau, was stricken with cancer and resigned as Delaware
attorney general, Joe Biden was reduced to borrowing from his
boss. Obama had the money because his political career had
brought him millions in book royalties. After his presidency he
and his wife have struck book deals with Random House and
production deals with Netflix. This, too, is a form of trading
off your name. And as for the sons of GeorgeH.W.Bush...
I think it is, to put
it diplomatically, strange that such a story is brought up now -
nearly seven decades after it supposedly happened. Of course,
the real reason for publishing such a "story" now is the actual
importance of the BLM and the climate of Islamophobia.
If the meeting really
did take place, it was of course wrong. Malcom X was not a saint
and he made mistake. Anyway, in contrast to these journalists,
he was a historic personality who played an extraordinary and
progressive role in the liberation struggle.
If the meeting did not
take place and it is simply a smear, this tells us a lot about
these journalists and those who offer them space to publish.
I think there is a reference in one of the biographies of
M.L. King to this meeting based on FBI files ---- I remember
a mention of the "fact" (not confirmed in this article) that
Malcolm said to the Klan that they needed to unite "against
the Jews ....."
THere is no HINT in this report of that and perhaps that
"story" is false .... but who knows????
(I think Manning Marable or someone who studied Malcolm X
said he had been an anti-semite when he was into the NOI
"Yacub" story ...)
The idea of
independent working class organization of course was
never part of the GP or it's candidates (Hawkins is probably an
exception to this) program. Why is one even talking about the GP?
Oh, right. Independent working class action. Just
what we need. Have to reread Trotsky on worker's militias.
So is their start in the GP a stepping stone or a misstep. If it's a cynical career move then David's right but
I would have thought most likely the latter. That they ditch their principles because the baubles of office become more important is true of most politicians. But is that Howie Hawkins' trajectory?
Here in New Zealand we had a co-leader of the Green Party, Metiria Turei, in parliament. She publicly stated that as a young solo mother she had claimed to be living alone with her child when in fact she was still in the same house as her ex - they were no longer together but she couldn't afford to move out. Hence she 'defrauded' the state of a few paltry dollars. A lot of women saw her statement as a huge relief. One woman was interviewed on national TV news describing how she had been forceed to turn to prostitution to support her child (not, incidentally, as a cool career move) and felt huge relief being able to unburden herself of her secret when she heard a leading politician step up and tell it like it is for a lot of single mums. The Green Party tore Metiria Turei limb from limb. She stood down as co-leader and left parliament. So I certainly don't see Green Parties through rose tinted spectacles, but I don't think Hawkins is in some sort of power grab.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 3:04 PM David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:
This is very common. The "career" is just that, an electoralist perspective of being reelected. It is not about the money (weird Louis would even say that). They leave the GP and then run as Dems for higher office, as in the case above. It's actually quite common. Virtually nothing is left behind in terms of organization or a movement. The whole point was to propel them to higher office as a Democrat. This is what Louis things of as "good thing"? The idea of independent working class organization of course was never part of the GP or it's candidates (Hawkins is probably an exception to this) program. Why is one even talking about the GP?
David
--
"All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks."
This is very common. The "career" is just that, an electoralist perspective of being reelected. It is not about the money (weird Louis would even say that). They leave the GP and then run as Dems for higher office, as in the case above. It's actually quite common. Virtually nothing is left behind in terms of organization or a movement. The whole point was to propel them to higher office as a Democrat. This is what Louis things of as "good thing"? The idea of independent working class organization of course was never part of the GP or it's candidates (Hawkins is probably an exception to this) program. Why is one even talking about the GP?
From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...> Date: October 24, 2020 at 6:34:03 PM EDT To: h-review@... Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...> Subject:H-Net Review [H-Nationalism]: Butler on Mathisen, 'The Loyal Republic: Traitors, Slaves, and the Remaking of Citizenship in Civil War America' Reply-To: h-review@...
Erik Mathisen. The Loyal Republic: Traitors, Slaves, and the Remaking of Citizenship in Civil War America. Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press, 2018. 240 pp. $34.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-4696-3632-0.
Reviewed by Clayton J. Butler (University of Virginia) Published on H-Nationalism (October, 2020) Commissioned by Evan C. Rothera
If one were to generate a word cloud for Erik Mathisen's book The Loyal Republic: Traitors, Slaves, and the Remaking of Citizenship in Civil War America, "obligation" would surely appear front and center. In this thoughtful work, Mathisen argues that prior to the Civil War white Americans lacked a concrete sense of the definition of national citizenship. The onset of the conflict, however, threw the obligations of citizens to the federal government, as well as the federal government to its citizens, into bold relief. The principal obligation of a citizen, Mathisen shows, became loyalty. The predication of citizenship on loyalty, which became policy during the Civil War, had far-reaching consequences, particularly for African Americans. By demonstrating their loyalty through military service and sacrifice, African Americans made a compelling case for their own citizenship that they pressed home during Reconstruction. As distance from the crisis grew, however, loyalty became less central to conceptions of citizenship, ultimately benefiting former Confederates at the expense of African Americans. Mathisen loosely situates his book in Mississippi, using that critical state as a theater to demonstrate how contests over state and different federal powers played out on the ground, how individuals expressed their loyalty (and to whom), and how the Civil War produced a new definition of citizenship that has affected Americans' political identity down to the present day.
In his first chapter Mathisen argues that, functionally, the national government of the United States did not have citizens between the early nineteenth century and the onset of the Civil War. In the absence of British subjecthood, which those in the Revolutionary era could define themselves against, positive definitions of what constituted national American citizenship became difficult to formulate, ambiguous at best, and hotly contested. Southern, states' rights understandings of the hierarchy of individual allegiance enjoyed broad cultural purchase. The Dred Scott decision, writes Mathisen, illustrates that as late as 1857 Americans still looked to the Supreme Court to help them understand just who was a citizen, who was not, and what that meant, exactly. Indeed, sharp disagreement prevailed even within the majority opinion, and Roger Taney's infamous decision only generated greater debate in its wake, exacerbating a rapidly deteriorating political situation. Mathisen shows that conversations over the specific definitions and obligations of citizenship occurred during times of strife, most notably in the antebellum period with nullification. Upon the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860, the secession crisis of that winter, and its consummation in the creation of the Confederacy, the United States faced the direst emergency of its existence, and definitions of citizenship, loyalty, and obligation took on a practical importance unlike ever before in both belligerent nations.
In the Confederacy, politicians fretted over not only the loyalty of their white citizens and black subjects, but also the various polities to which that loyalty was owed. A states' rights revolution subsumed into a national independence movement made the issue of where citizens should direct their primary allegiance messy from the outset. Confederate statesmen, Mathisen finds, almost deliberately avoided defining the strict parameters of citizenship in the early days of state formation. Ultimately, the proving ground of war would provide the answers. In chapter 2, Mathisen focuses on the Republic of Mississippi and its governor, John J. Pettus. He treats Mississippi as the quasi-independent entity it remained into 1862, which, though unusual and a bit disorienting, emphasizes the contingent process of Confederate nation-state formation and its multilayered political operations. In the end, the exigencies of war resulted in federal power prevailing over state. By 1863, the state's increasing subservience to the Confederate national government's needs, combined with Union occupation, had effectively rendered the Republic of Mississippi a political nonentity.
For Mathisen, the unbridled growth of the Confederate state represents one of the signal developments of nineteenth-century American political culture, and he further pinpoints the institution of conscription as the "moment when the Confederate state came of age" (p. 73). In his third chapter, he homes in on the Confederate army to better understand the development of the terms of national citizenship. If loyalty had become the defining element of citizenship, as the author argues, military service represented the _act_ of loyalty, and by instituting conscription the Confederate state obliged its citizens to perform that act. The draft made a powerful assertion of the government's authority and reach. Its citizens' lives no longer belonged to them; they belonged to the state. Perhaps most importantly, Mathisen insightfully notes that the bonds of Confederate citizenship created during the war proved stronger than the bonds of American citizenship that had existed prior to the war, a development that would have far-reaching consequences.
Perhaps Mathisen's most compelling chapters concern the ways that African Americans seized upon the newfound centrality of loyalty to citizenship and used it, as he says, "as a wedge to pry open the body politic" (p. 90). By taking up arms to defend the Union, African Americans made an unassailable claim to citizenship, one that they sustained into the postwar debates over reconciliation and retribution and which bore fruit with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also tied their postwar appeals for land and property, the subject of chapter 6, to their wartime loyalty.
Protection of property rights represented the government's most important reciprocal obligation to its citizens, which they promised in exchange for their loyalty. Confederates' wanton disloyalty, argued African Americans and their advocates, had abnegated the responsibility of the government to maintain their property rights. It ought to go, they said, to those who had risked life and limb to preserve--rather than destroy--the Union, and would provide the only sure basis for independence and self-sufficiency for the vulnerable community of recently freed people. Unfortunately, property redistribution proved a bridge too far for Congress to undertake, and "exposed the limits of the political imagination at the heart of Reconstruction" (p. 164). The unwillingness to do this much, to take the logic connecting loyalty and property to its natural conclusion, set the stage for Jim Crow, the abandonment of southern African Americans by the federal government, and the rehabilitation of former Confederates.
Ultimately, in what has now become a familiar story of the historiography of the Civil War era, the federal government dispensed with loyalty as the litmus test of citizenship in order to facilitate the reunion of white northerners and southerners, leaving African Americans on the outside looking in. Mathisen's book expertly traces this process, and in so doing adds another layer to scholars' understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction as the most radically transformative era of American history.
Citation: Clayton J. Butler. Review of Mathisen, Erik, _The Loyal Republic: Traitors, Slaves, and the Remaking of Citizenship in Civil War America_. H-Nationalism, H-Net Reviews. October, 2020. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55573
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
replying to Louis Proyect -- David Walters wrote about Green Party politicians, not merely Green Party elected officials. One example is the career of United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
The New York Times, Nov. 13, 2018 How Kyrsten Sinema Won Her Senate Seat and Pulled Off A Historic Arizona Triumph
PHOENIX — Kyrsten Sinema’s first foray into politics ended in failure when she campaigned as an antiwar activist and finished dead last out of five candidates in a race for a seat in the Arizona Legislature.
Sixteen years later, Ms. Sinema has achieved a historic political triumph, becoming the first woman ever to represent Arizona in the Senate, and the first Democrat from the state to win a Senate seat since the 1980s.
How did Ms. Sinema do it? She transformed herself into a conservative Democrat who ran a disciplined campaign designed to attract Republican and independent voters who were frustrated with President Trump. And she capitalized on a changing Arizona, where the grip that Republicans have long had on the suburbs around Phoenix may be weakening.
“Sinema is the single best politician in Arizona today,” said Stan Barnes, a longtime Republican strategist in Phoenix. “She has a magnetism that can win people over.”
Beyond Ms. Sinema’s talent at working a room, Democrats and Republicans around the United States are now trying to decipher whether her defeat of her Republican opponent, Martha McSally, offers a kind of playbook that others with similar ambitions can study.
Ms. Sinema finished last in her first campaign in 2002 for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives as an independent affiliated with the Green Party.
But she switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and won a seat in the state Legislature. Ms. Sinema began showing an independent streak, speaking openly about her sexuality — she will be the first openly bisexual member of Congress — and her belief in secular government. While Ms. Sinema was raised in a Mormon family, she now ascribes to no religion.
Ms. Sinema, 42, gained a reputation for working with ideological rivals in the Republican-controlled chamber while marking up wins like the defeat of a measure that would have banned the recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Arizona.
She then won a seat in 2012 in the United States House of Representatives, campaigning against a Republican opponent who accused her of practicing “pagan rituals” during antiwar protests. Ms. Sinema took the temperature of her Phoenix district, which included many Republicans and independent voters, and moved further to the center once in Washington.
While describing herself as bipartisan, her pro-business votes won her a rare endorsement for a Democrat from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when she ran for re-election in 2014. She joined the Blue Dog Coalition, the group comprising relatively conservative Democrats, and drew criticism from the left for a voting record in which she often sided with President Trump and other Republicans.
Meanwhile, other forces were reshaping Arizona’s political landscape. Republicans still outnumber Democrats in the state, but so do independents. Arizona, despite the bluster of some of its Republican activists, is the state that has been home to Republicans willing sometimes to criticize President Trump, including John McCain, the iconic senator who died over the summer at the age of 81, and Jeff Flake, who is vacating the seat won by Ms. Sinema.
Still, momentum seems to be on the side of Democrats, a trend that accelerated in the closing weeks of the campaign. Since the primaries in August, for every two voters that registered as Republicans in the state, three registered as Democrats, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.
“I kind of smile when someone asks how Sinema pulled it off,” said Alejandra Gomez, executive director of the Arizona Center for Empowerment, a group that supports immigrant rights and public education.
“I mean, we pulled it off,” said Ms. Gomez, emphasizing how her group and other grass-roots organizers registered about 190,000 people to vote in Arizona ahead of this year’s election. “We knocked on the doors of over a million people of color. Think about that. There’s a lot of talk about signing up first-time voters but we went out and did it.”
Ms. Gomez said that doing so sometimes resulted in tense conversations among organizers. Some expressed concern about asking people to vote for Ms. Sinema, who steadfastly refused to endorse David Garcia, the liberal Democrat who ran for governor of Arizona and lost in a landslide to the Republican incumbent, Doug Ducey.
Then there was Ms. Sinema’s voting record on immigration issues. She was one of only two dozen Democrats in the House who voted in favor of Kate’s Law, a bill to expand maximum sentences for foreigners who re-enter the country after being deported.
Ms. Sinema also voted for legislation to intensify the screening of refugees, and co-sponsored legislation calling for regular analyses of terrorist threats on the border with Mexico. She has also explicitly voiced support for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that some liberals have called to abolish.
“For some people it came down to comparing Sinema to an opponent who openly campaigned on the Trump fear tactics,” said Ms. Gomez, referring to Ms. McSally, the Republican defeated in the Senate race. Ms. McSally, who was viewed as a moderate ahead of the election, closely aligned herself to Mr. Trump during the campaign.
“We helped Sinema win and now we need to be there to remind her about this pivotal source of support,” Ms. Gomez said. “But at least we know she’s better than the alternative.”
Ms. Sinema also adroitly handled the changing currents in Maricopa County, which encompasses Phoenix and ranks among the fastest-growing counties in the United States. With about 4.3 million people, Maricopa County accounts for about 60 percent of Arizona’s overall population of seven million.
Outside Arizona, Maricopa is still known as the home of Joe Arpaio, the sheriff whose harsh treatment of immigrants won him accolades from the right. Mr. Trump pardoned Mr. Arpaio after a criminal contempt conviction.
But Mr. Arpaio was clobbered by Ms. McSally in the Republican primary for the Senate seat that Ms. Sinema has now won. And it was her ability to win over moderate Republicans in Maricopa County that took her past the finish line, easily outperforming other Democrats in the county.
“Sinema focused on issues that matter to suburban voters whether they’re Republican or Democrat: health care, veterans and education,” said Kris Mayes, a professor of practice at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and a former Republican appointee to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
“She had six years to hone her skills in a very purple congressional district, and knew that she had to avoid entanglement in progressive causes,” said Ms. Mayes, who lives in the district Ms. Sinema represented in the House. “Essentially she’s a very disciplined centrist. That’s the formula for a Democrat to win in this state.”
I think there is a reference in one of the biographies of M.L. King to this meeting based on FBI files ---- I remember a mention of the "fact" (not confirmed in this article) that Malcolm said to the Klan that they needed to unite "against the Jews ....."
THere is no HINT in this report of that and perhaps that "story" is false .... but who knows????
(I think Manning Marable or someone who studied Malcolm X said he had been an anti-semite when he was into the NOI "Yacub" story ...)
Seems you are
ignorant of the local GP candidates career trajectories over the
last 20 years. You think the GP pops up ever 4 years to a useless
Presidential run? Jeeezzeee...!!! You need to get out more.
What are you talking about? That they have become
elected to some city council? If that's the career that you are
talking about, I am all for it. But if you are really interested
in a career that will allow you to get rich, that's the
Democratic Party. As far as I know, Greens never get past the
municipal level. If they get to the highest level in a
municipality to be mayor, it's never a major city. If you
counter-evidence, let's hear it.
Seems you are ignorant of the local GP candidates career trajectories over the last 20 years. You think the GP pops up ever 4 years to a useless Presidential run? Jeeezzeee...!!! You need to get out more.
doesn't change a thing about the Greens whatsoever, for their members, or for their candidates, many of whom, because it is the Green Party, are simply "out Democrats" seeking to make a career out of electoral politics.
Career out of electoral politics? Oh right. Can't wait for Vanity Fair to do a profile on Howie Hawkins.
A few comments. First an error: "...the CIA foiled a right-wing plan to kidnap the Governor of Michigan..." No, it was the FBI, not the CIA. Everyone should know that so it's strange you'd see this mistake.
Just on Louis' comments. Louis, you were arguing against José Perez for making the same analysis you are making now, over 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of "members" of the Democrats and Republicans are also "wage earners". How is that at all relevant? The issue is not what the atomized membership that it is composed of but what class they orient toward. Do the Greens see the working class as the motive force for change, for revolution, for fundamental change in society? I'd say a big fat NO. They recently included a bullet item that they are aksi "ecosocialist". This is meaningless and doesn't change a thing about the Greens whatsoever, for their members, or for their candidates, many of whom, because it is the Green Party, are simply "out Democrats" seeking to make a career out of electoral politics. One can make a legit argument to "vote" for the Green Party. However, one has not a sense of reality by calling them, implicitly or explicitly, a party of the working class.
Lastly...in the article they write "The bosses have their own party and representatives, the working class should have their own on their own ballot line." This is, correctly, mimicking the 1990s Labor Party. I agree 100% here with this sentiment. Down toward the end of the article they write, "The goal of such a party will not be to win elections and institute socialism or socialist reforms, as there is no electoral road to socialism, but to build the strength of the working class towards revolution." Really, this is the Spartacist League's own "Built a Revolutionary Workers Party!" ultra left slogan in nicer sounding language. By pre-ordaining such a party as revolutionary socialist they destroy any bridge to actually building a workers party of our class. Our class, even the broadest conception of the working class, that is both organized in the unions and in the oppressed communities, are not going to build squat with an explicitly Trotskyist perspective like that. One needs a bridge that can be a roadway toward a revolutionary party, but it is not going to be starting point, but the endpoint. The article has zero tactical acument on how to get to a "workers party". No initiatives, nothing to point too. And that is a consistent problem with Left Voice.
...the Democratic Party, which has a good chance of winning
this election, is preparing to take back the White House and
possibly the Senate in order to shore up and intensify U.S.
imperialism. A Biden government will be charged with continuing
the imperialist offensive, imposing the anti-worker austerity
that the capitalists require, and keeping the justice system and
police departments intact.
I like Left Voice a lot but they don't understand
the importance of the Green Party. Plus, their characterization
of it is flawed:
"The Green Party, a multi-class party, cannot do
the most important work needed for socialists in an election
cycle — to highlight the class character of parties and argue
that the working class needs its own representation."
Multi-class? What does that mean? Someone who
owns a health food store or is a college professor does not
belong to the capitalist class. Most Greens are wage-earners.
Unless you think that someone can only be working-class only if
they produce surplus value, it makes no sense to call the GP
multi-class. In fact, I doubt that there's much difference
between the Left Voice collective and NY Greens in class terms.
Down the road, there might be a mass
working-class party that conforms to their ideal. When that
begins to materialize, you'd expect it to become a pole of
attraction for the left. By the same token, there were a number
of abolitionist parties before the Republican Party came into
existence. It was only when northern industrialists became the
dominant class against the slavocracy that the Republican Party
became a revolutionary force. But you can't suck such parties
out of your thumb. They must mature from historical
conditions, which certainly are changing. Until they become facts
on the ground, I'll remain a Green.
The idea of "right to repair" is key to the
degrowth movement. In Richard Smith's "China's Engine to
Environmental Collapse", he makes a big point of this especially
when it comes to iPhones and cars. Why the need to introduce new
and "improved" models every year or two? If you have cars at
all, they should be just as repairable as the ones Cubans are
driving around on. Better yet, the emphasis should be on
bicycles and buses, not cars. The other big problem is "fast
fashion" in places like Zara, Uniqlo and H&M as Richard also
points out. The amount of water and "acid" washing for the junk
sold there creates big problems. When I was young, I owned a
couple of pairs of Levi's that were not acid-washed. They faded
from washing, not chemicals. Bring them back and the VW Beetle.
Fix, or Toss? The ‘Right to Repair’ Movement
Gains Ground
Both Republicans and Democrats are
pursuing laws to make it easier for people to fix cellphones,
cars, even hospital ventilators. In Europe, the movement is
further along.
Last
fall, Apple said it would give independent repair
shops the same parts and other tools for iPhone
repairs as it provides to company-authorized service
providers.Credit...PJR, via
Alamy
ByPaola Rosa-Aquino
If
you buy a product — a car, a smartphone, or even a tractor —
and it breaks, should it be easier for you to fix it
yourself?
Manufacturers
of a wide range of products have made it increasingly
difficult over the years to repair things, for instance by
limiting availability of parts or by putting prohibitions on
who gets to tinker with them. It affects not only game
consoles or farm equipment, but cellphones, military gear,
refrigerators, automobiles and even hospital ventilators,
the lifesaving devices that have proven crucial this year in
fighting the Covid-19 pandemic.
Now,
a movement known as “right to repair” is starting to make
progress in pushing for laws that prohibit restrictions like
these.
This August, Democrats
introduced a bill in Congress to block manufacturers’ limits
on medical devices, spurred by the pandemic. In Europe, the
European Commission announced plans in March fornew right-to-repair rulesthat
would cover phones, tablets, and laptops by 2021.
In
less than two weeks, Massachusetts voters will consider a
measure that would make it easier for local garages to work
on cars. And in more than 20 statehouses nationwide,
right-to-repair legislation has been introduced in recent
years by both Republicans and Democrats.
Over
the summer, the House advanced a funding bill that includes
a requirement that theFTC complete a reporton
anticompetitive practices in the repair market and present
its findings to Congress and the public. And in aletterto the Federal Trade
Commission, Marine Captain Elle Ekman and former Marine
Lucas Kunce last year detailed how mechanics in the American
armed forces have run into similar obstacles.
The
goal of right-to-repair rules, advocates say, is to require
companies to make their parts, tools and information
available to consumers and repair shops in order to keep
devices from ending up in the scrap heap. They argue that
the rules restrict people’s use of devices that they own and
encourage a throwaway culture by making repairs too
difficult.
They
also argue that it’s part of a culture of planned
obsolescence — the idea that products are designed to be
short-lived in order to encourage people to buy more stuff.
That contributes to wasted natural resources and energy use
at a time when climate change requires movement in the
opposite direction to rein in planet-warming emissions.
Manufacturing a new device
or appliance is still largely reliant on polluting sources
of energy — electricity generated from burning fossil fuels,
for instance — and constitutes the largest environmental
impact for most products. Mining and manufacturing materials
for thenewestiPhone, for example,
represents roughly 83 percent of its contribution to the
heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere throughout its
life cycle, according to Apple’smanufacturing data. For a washing machine, it’s
about57 percent.
Add
to that complex calculus the emissions from assembling the
materials into a product, and then shipping it around the
world.
“There are a lot of products
that are not designed to last,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, the
executive director of theRepair Association,
a group focused on right-to-repair legislation. “But if you
have enough options for repair, you can keep even the worst
product going, if you can fix it.”
Image
A
copper and cobalt mine in Congo. Mining and
manufacturing materials for smart phones represent a
majority of the devices’ contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions.Credit...Reuters
Manufacturers
argue that their products are repairable, and that they are
protecting consumers’ safety, privacy and security by
restricting who does the repairs. Apple, for instance,
limits consumers from repairing their devices by requiring
specific tools or authorized parts.
“When
a repair is needed, a customer should have confidence the
repair is done right,” Jeff Williams, Apple’s chief
operating officer, said in areleaselast year. “We believe the
safest and most reliable repair is one handled by a trained
technician using genuine parts that have been properly
engineered and rigorously tested.”
An
Apple spokeswoman this week pointed to the company’s efforts
to expand its product repair programs: Last fall, the tech
giantannouncedit will give independent
repair businesses the same genuine parts, tools, and
diagnostics for iPhone repairs as it gives to
Apple-authorized service providers.
Other companies argue that
the computer code that drives the device remains the
property of the manufacturer, not the consumer, which
further limits the potential for third-party repair. Tractor
manufacturer John Deere is one example, usinglicense agreementswith farmers
that forbid them from even looking at the software running
the tractor. Violating it could be considered breach of
contract, which comes with the risk of a lawsuit.
Jen
Hartmann, John Deere’s director of strategic public
relations, said the company has “made anindustry commitmentalong with
several ag equipment manufacturers to provide a
comprehensive tool kit of service tools available to help
end users perform service and maintenance on their
machinery.”
For
Leticia Reynolds earlier this year, it was a safety issue of
a different sort. As a medical equipment technician at
Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs, she was eager to get
ventilators in service. The country faced a nationwide
shortage of the lifesaving machines, which help desperately
ill patients breathe.
But
there were some that Ms. Reynolds couldn’t fix herself,
because the manufacturer wouldn’t let her. Some ventilator
makers are among those companies imposing rules prohibiting
anyone but their own technicians from obtaining the tools,
parts, and instructions to make repairs.
“We’re
100-percent solely depending on the manufacturer,” she said,
even for routine maintenance. But that can delay repairs,
which can mean “equipment isn’t available for a patient that
needs it.”
Over
the past year or so, as much of the world was cooped up due
to stay-at-home restrictions, sales of Nintendo’s Switch
console have increased sharply. But players have been
struggling with a problem that has plagued its detachable
wireless controllers, called Joy-Cons, for years: Sometimes
it thinks players are moving the controller, even if they
aren’t.
That
led to aclass-action lawsuitclaiming,
among other things, that the company “routinely refuses to
repair the joysticks without charge.” The case is now in
arbitration, and since then, the company has begun fixing
Joy-Con issues at no charge.
Still, the fight continues:
Last month, a French consumer advocacy groupfileda complaint alleging planned
obsolescence, claiming Nintendo knew some controllers were
failing too quickly.
Nintendo
did not respond to a request for comment.
While
these burdens on repair can make some gadgets seem unusable
and, consequently, disposable, some argue that new repair
mandates wouldn’t have a measurable effect on how often
people replace their products.
“Common
consumer devices such as laptops and smartphones are already
widely reused and recycled without any type of new repair
mandate,” said Walter Alcorn, vice president of
environmental affairs at the Consumer Technology
Association, an industry trade group that represents
thousands of technology companies including Apple, Dell, and
Microsoft.
He
said that CTA’s biennial survey showed that only 2 percent
of consumers “report throwing their old mobile device in the
trash while more than 10 times as many reported either
trading in their old mobile device, selling it, giving it
away, or recycling it.”
The idea of planned
obsolescence isn’t new. It was written about in 1928 by
Justus George Frederick, an American advertising expert who
suggested that people would have to buy an ever-increasing
variety of things, then discard them and purchase new
things, in order to help keep a consumer economy steaming
along.
Image
Sifting
through electronic waste for recoverable materials in
Ghana. Experts say the lifespan of many consumer goods
has declined.Credit...Christian Thompson/EPA, via Shutterstock
Since
at least the early 1960s, critics have complained that
planned obsolescence wastes people’s money, uses valuable
resources and chokes landfills. Today, for example, there
are more than 70 different elements in a modern smartphone —
nearly two-thirds of the periodic table in the palm of your
hand.
Research suggests that
consumer devices may be more short-lived than in the past.
According toa studyby a German sustainability
research group, Öko-Institut, the proportion of major
household appliances that died within five years rose from
3.5 percent in 2004 to 8.3 percent in 2012. Though the
analysis is now several years old, it found the trend in a
wide spectrum of products, including TV sets and large
electrical appliances as well as mobile phones.
Extending
the life of a product even relatively briefly can have
significant benefits, according to Nathan Proctor, who leads
the right-to-repair campaign at the U.S. Public Interest
Research Group, a consumer advocacy group. If Americans
would extend the life of their cellphones by one year, for
instance, it would be the climate-saving equivalent of
taking 636,000 cars off the road, or about the amount of
passenger vehicles registered in the state of New Mexico.