Category Archives: Democracy

Democracy, Republicans

Release of v. 5 of the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a man bites dog story

The Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released what is probably its final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which goes beyond what we learned from the Mueller report. The 966-page fifth volume provides more details and establishes more conclusively that Trump’s claim — “It’s all a hoax” — is a lie.

▪ “The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” (p. 5)

▪ “Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. . . . Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections and beyond.

Prior to joining the Trump Campaign in March 2016 and continuing throughout his time on the Campaign, Manafort directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik, Derispaska, and the pro-Russian oligarchs in Urkraine. On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik.” (p. 6)

▪ “The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump because the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

[Redacted] WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence effort. The Committee found significant indications that [redacted] …

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a russion election interference effort” (p. 7)

SSCI report on Russian interference in 2016 election, v. 5, p. vii.

Writing at Lawfare, Benjamin Wittes suggests that, in their statement asserting that “the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election,” Senate Republicans on the committee have misrepresented the report they signed off on.

Wittes draws three conclusions from the report: First, the report’s findings validate and go further than the Mueller report. Second, the findings undercut Bill Barr’s efforts to portray the Russian investigation as illegitimate “spying” on the Trump campaign. And, finally [emphasis added]:

Third, while I have contempt for the rhetoric of these Republican senators and I find it almost mind-boggling to try to reconcile the text of this report with their votes in the impeachment only a few short months ago, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the public service they have done here. Yes, they are lying about having done it—pretending they found things other than what they found and did not find the things they actually found. And yes, they are almost religiously evading the moral, legal, and democratic consequences of what they found.

But unlike their counterparts in the House of Representatives, they allowed this investigation to take place. They ran a bipartisan, serious investigation. They worked with their Democratic colleagues to insulate it from an environment rife with pressures. And they produced a report that is a worthy contribution to our understanding of what happened four years ago.

This report may represent the most significant example of bipartisanship in American politics in 2020. It is an extraordinarily rare instance of senators working across the aisle on a fiercely partisan issue that has become nearly extinct.

In their 2012 book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein write: “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Documenting and illustrating the truth of that conclusion has been the most consistent theme of this blog. As someone who has followed politics since my teenage years in the mid-1960s, it has been fascinating and horrifying to see the Republican Party run itself off the rails. Bipartisanship, a collegial Senate, and even placing U.S. security interests above the Republican party line, are in the last stages of extinction.

Let’s acknowledge that we’re not quite there yet — not 100%.

(Although Marco Rubio now heads the panel, I suspect that we can attribute this milestone to the relationship between Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, and their respective authority as leaders to direct the work of the committee and to make decisions for their side of the party divide, for this success. Just like in the good ole days.)

Note however that this exception reveals the Republican Party’s comprehensive success in evading accountability and truth: Republican voters don’t trust the mainstream media, and will hear (if they hear anything at all of this report) only mischaracterizations on Fox New Channel and in other conservative media. So, the Republican senators who allowed the release of this report could rest assured that their false statement — which relies on “lying,” “pretending,” and “almost religiously evading the moral, legal, and democratic consequences of what they found” — will be taken at face value by Donald Trump and his base.

Republicans, in other words, will accept the fraudulent cover story as true. Should the actual substance of the report come to their attention, that will be rejected as “fake news.” In 2020, a singular gesture of bipartisanship doesn’t leave us much to celebrate.

(Image: screengrab of Reuters video.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Democrats, Donald Trump, Republicans

Trump’s war on the Post Office is key to the Republican party’s voter suppression strategy

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1293896544668782592

They want three and a half trill — billion dollars for the mail-in votes. Okay, universal mail-in ballots. Three and a half trill — They want 25 billion dollars — billion — for the Post Office.

Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work, so it can take all these millions and millions of ballots.

Now, in the meantime, they aren’t getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting. — Donald Trump on the phone with Fox Business Network.

It couldn’t be clearer.

“They” are the Democrats and “they need  that money in order to have the Post Office work” — and Donald Trump doesn’t want the Post Office to work because it would permit “universal mail-in voting.”

Donald Trump — adopting a decades old Republican strategy — is focused on depressing voter turnout in the upcoming election. He realizes that — based on the best evidence we have right now — in a high turnout election he will be turned out of the White House.

Gutting the U.S. Postal Service — never mind the effects on the American public and our economy, both of which rely on prompt, reliable mail delivery — is an attempt to avoid being held accountable on November 3. This strategy has played out over the past three months:

In May, Louis DeJoy – a multi-million dollar contributor to the Republican Party – was appointed Postmaster General. Since that time he has imposed changes that have eliminated overtime for hundreds of thousands of postal workers; prohibited late trips to deliver mail; and ruled that, if a distribution center is running late, “they will keep the mail for the next day.”

He reassigned 23 top executives at the Postal Service, imposed a hiring freeze, and implemented “early retirement authority” for nonunion employees.

On Tuesday, Noel King at NPR interviewed Kimberly Karol, president of the Iowa Postal Workers Union. Among the things we learn from Ms. Karol is that the Postal Service has been removing mail sorting machines at facilities across the country. Another key fact: many of the changes circumvent rules that require public comment when closing offices or degrading delivery standards – but which have the same result.

Here is a brief exchange:

KAROL: Yes, we are beginning to see those changes and how it is impacting the mail. Mail is beginning to pile up in our offices, and we’re seeing equipment being removed. So we are beginning to see the impact of those changes.
KING: Curious – I hadn’t heard about this one – equipment being removed. What equipment?
KAROL: The sorting equipment that we use to process mail for delivery. In Iowa, we are losing machines. And they already in Waterloo were losing one of those machines. So that also hinders our ability to process mail in the way that we had in the past.
KING: Sure. Sounds like it would. You’ve been a postal worker for 30 years? How do you feel about Louis DeJoy?
KAROL: I am not a fan. I grew up in a culture of service, where every piece was to be delivered every day. And his policies, although they’ve only been in place for a few weeks, are now affecting the way that we do business and not allowing us to deliver every piece every day, as we’ve done in the past.
KING: Do you get the impression that your feelings about him are shared broadly among postal workers? Do people agree with you?
KAROL: Yes, all across the country. We are trying to activate people all across the country and notify the public because we will – my opinion is that the PMG is trying to circumvent the rules that have been set in place to safeguard the public by making changes that don’t require public comment but have the same impact as closing offices and/or changing delivery standards. And so this is a way to avoid that kind of public comment. And we’re trying to make sure that the public understands that they need to make comment.

It is remarkable that this attempt to sabotage democracy by crippling the Post Office is happening in plain sight.

In recent years the Republican Party has increasingly relied on sowing social division, on racial, ethnic, and religious cleavages, to win elections. And, as that ugly Us-vs.-Them narrative has proved unreliable — the GOP has won the popular vote in only one presidential election since 2000 — the fallback position, now in the foreground, is to attack democratic institutions that ensure majority rule.

And that’s not the half of it. It’s not just democratic practices and institutions that are threatened. Much more is at stake. The Republican Party is prepared to accept a stomach-turning level of collateral damage to stay in power. Early on, as Trump jumped to do Vladimir Putin’s bidding, Republicans accepted the damage to our national security and the destruction of alliances that have kept the peace. As the coronavirus has swept the country, Republicans have chosen to accept an enormous and still rising death toll, rather than break with Trump. Let’s grant, inflicting severe damage on the Post Office is small potatoes for these guys. They appear ready to do pretty much anything they can get away with to stay in power.

The decision Americans make on November 3 could hardly be more consequential.

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump

Why we can’t count on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to avert an electoral disaster in November 2020

The withdrawal of federal troops from the South in 1877 ushered in the Jim Crow era. Put into place state by state over several decades, Jim Crow imposed legally sanctioned segregation made possible by the disenfranchisement of Black Americans. C. Vann Woodward writes in The Strange Career of Jim Crow:

The effectiveness of disfranchisement is suggested by a comparison of the number of registered Negro voters in Louisiana in 1896, when there were 130,334 and in 1904, when there were 1,342. Between the two dates the literacy, property, and poll-tax qualifications were adopted. In 1896 Negro registrants were in a majority in twenty-six parishes—by 1900 in none.

In spite of the ultimate success of disfranchisement, the movement met with stout resistance and succeeded in some states by narrow margins or the use of fraud. In order to overcome the opposition and divert the suspicions of the poor and illiterate whites that they as well as the Negro were in danger of losing the franchise—a suspicion that often proved justified—the leaders of the movement resorted to an intensive propaganda of white supremacy, Negrophobia, and race chauvinism. Such a campaign preceded and accompanied disfranchisement in each state.

Jim Crow was not merely a Southern institution. It was an integral element in FDR’s Democratic coalition and served as scaffolding for Democratic majorities in Congress well into the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson made the commitment to enact historical civil rights legislation (knowing full well that the Solid South would shift from Democratic to Republican).

Fifty-five years ago today, President Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. John Lewis, whose recent passing has focused attention on voting rights, was present at the signing.

LBJ’s signature brought an abrupt end to a vile era in American history. In the view of the Department of Justice (circa June 2009), the law proved to be extraordinarily effective.

Soon after passage of the Voting Rights Act, federal examiners were conducting voter registration, and black voter registration began a sharp increase. The cumulative effect of the Supreme Court’s decisions, Congress’ enactment of voting rights legislation, and the ongoing efforts of concerned private citizens and the Department of Justice, has been to restore the right to vote guaranteed by the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Voting Rights Act itself has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress.

That 2009 assessment (near the beginning of the Obama administration) looks somewhat dated now, in the second decade of the 21st century, as the United States Supreme Court – led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has made a career out of battling the Voting Rights Act – has persistently chipped away at the right to vote in subsequent years.

In 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, Roberts, writing for a 5-4 Republican majority of the Supreme Court, struck down the Justice Department’s authority to subject states and local governments with a history of discrimination in voting to “pre-clearance” requirements when changing voting laws and procedures. While the law still stands, the ruling stripped away the most effective means of enforcing it.

In his opinion, Roberts wrote that in the jurisdictions subject to pre-clearance since 1965, Black registration has increased substantially. “Racial disparity in those numbers was compelling evidence justifying the preclearance remedy and the coverage formula. There is no longer such a disparity.”

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent, replied: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Richard Hasen notes in Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy:

Justice Ginsburg was right that the law served as a deterrent and that bad behavior would quickly return upon its removal. Within hours of the Shelby County decision, Texas announced it would immediately enforce its law requiring those wanting to vote to provide one of a limited number of types of photographic identification. Student IDs were unacceptable, but concealed handgun permits were allowed.

Other states soon followed with a range of suppression measures targeting Democratic constituencies:

Closing polling places to create voting deserts. By election day in November 2018, the Leadership Conference Education Fund found that 1,688 polling places had been closed.

Cutting back on early voting. Although more than two-thirds of the states permit early voting, a number have implemented cutbacks. Governors, secretaries of state, and state legislatures are generally discreet about announcing their intent, but not always. North Carolina (in a court filing) acknowledged restricting Sunday voting because “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

Fewer voting places and fewer days to vote results in longer lines in selected neighborhoods.

Wholesale purges of voting rolls. Between 2016 and 2018 more than 17 million names were removed from voting rolls nationwide. The Supreme Court has ensured that states have wide latitude to conduct such purges – even when there is evidence that lists of voters to be purged are riddled with errors.

Ari Berman comments (“Republicans Are Trying to Kick Thousands of Voters Off the Rolls During a Pandemic”):

There’s nothing inherently wrong with updating registration lists to remove the names of people who have become ineligible to vote. “We want election administrators to have the tools they need to make sure that the records are clean,” says the Brennan Center’s Pérez. But recent examples show that some purges mislabel thousands of eligible voters, disproportionately Democrats and people of color. 

The Chief Justice is often the swing vote on the Roberts Court, forming a majority with liberals on one case, then with conservatives on another. But on issues of voting rights, gerrymandering, and campaign finance – all central to the Republican Party’s electoral strategy as its voting base shrinks – Roberts almost invariably sides with the GOP.

Earlier in 2020, conservative majorities led by the Chief Justice have weighed in numerous times on voting rights:

In April the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Republican National Committee in blocking a lower court ruling that gave Wisconsin voters an extra six days to return ballots.

In July the Court reprised the Wisconsin decision with rulings in Alabama and Texas cases. The Alabama ruling carried with the same 5-4 majority, though there were no dissents to the Texas ruling.

Later in July the 5-4 conservative majority sided with Republican officials in Florida in upholding an appellate court ruling that blocked felons from voting if they could not afford to reimburse the state for court costs, just a poll taxes barred voters in the Jim Crow era.

LBJ’s signature on the Voting Rights Act transformed both of the country’s political parties. As white Southerners abandoned it, the Democratic Party became a highly diverse coalition, while the GOP, a half century later, is mostly white and led by a man who sees “very fine people” among white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump celebrated the vote by mail system in Florida (where Trump casts his mail-in ballots). The day before he blasted vote by mail in Nevada, complaining that it would make it “impossible for Republicans to win the state,” and promising litigation.

We can count on litigation aplenty. President Trump is hellbent on casting doubt on the integrity of the November election. Through tweets, interviews, and musings to the press, he throws up nonsense, conspiracy theories, and whiny accusations — all instances of Steven Bannon’s tactic for muddying the waters (“flooding the zone with shit,” in his words). All of this advances the politics of grievance and provides fodder for (heretofore) spurious legal claims.

It’s possible that the Supreme Court will decide the November election — as the it did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore — but if the decision turns on issues related to the Voting Rights Act, there is little doubt that John Roberts will be among the five conservative Republican men in the majority.

The surest way to prevent that: clear, decisive victories for Joe Biden at the ballot box in enough states to make the outcome indisputable.

(Image of President Johnson, at the signing ceremony of the Voting Rights Act, with Martin Luther King Jr.: LBJ Presidential Library.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump, Off the Rails

Donald Trump speculates: “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote?”

“He gets new information. He likes to talk that through out loud. And really have that dialogue. And so that’s what dialogue he was having.“ — Dr. Deborah Birx on Donald Trump’s suggestion at a public health briefing that injecting bleach could be a cure for COVID-19.

Yesterday:

▪ Donald Trump boohooed that he had lower approval ratings among Americans than Dr. Anthony Fauci:

He’s working with our administration. And for the most part we’ve done pretty much what he and others — Dr. Birx and others, who are terrific — recommended. And he’s got this high approval rating. So, why don’t I have a high approval rating with respect — and the administration — with respect to the virus?

▪ He downplayed the coronavirus and touted hydroxychloroquine as remedy, though the FDA revoked authorization for use of the drug for COVID-19 treatment “reports of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.”

▪ And the President retweeted a video (since removed by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, but not before 14 million viewings) with discredited claims from a Houston doctor/religious minister that she has successfully treated hundreds of coronavirus patients with hydroxychloroquine and that face masks are not necessary to stop the spread of the virus. Stella Immanuel has also claimed that gynecological problems are caused by having sex in ones dreams with demons and witches; that DNA from alien beings is being used in medicine today; and that “reptilions” and other aliens are embedded in our government.

▪ Donald Trump is still a fan: “There was a woman who was spectacular in her statements about it: that she’s had tremendous success with it.”

Just another day in the Trump presidency. So, when he tweets about delaying the election, is Trump simply riffing? Merely talking out loud about something he’s seen online or on cable TV? Is this nothing more than more idle talk from an uninformed, credulous individual?

Neither the Constitution, nor federal law grant this man, even though he sits in the Oval Office, the authority to change the date of the 2020 election. But it is well within his power to signal his view that something isn’t on the up and up. Something about the November 3 election is rotten. The Democrats are trying to cheat.

The President of the United States has sought for many months to delegitimize the 2020 election, much as he did in the run-up to the 2016 election, before winning it — and even afterwards.

Donald Trump has presided over a disastrous 2020. His failures — resulting in an unfolding tragedy that grows greater by the day — are unmistakable. Surveys of public opinion suggest a steeply uphill climb to reelection for the President.

As the prospect of losing has become more likely, Trump has waged a campaign against mail-in voting, insisting that “it doesn’t work out well for Republicans,” and even more dire that it will “lead to the end of our great Republican Party.”

He has continued to strike this theme throughout the year:

He has endorsed the unsubstantiated claim of Bill Barr that foreign governments might corrupt the election by printing and mailing counterfeit ballots

Election officials have discounted the President’s claims (“Trump claims without evidence that mail voting leads to cheating: A guide to facts on absentee ballots.”):

“We are not aware of any evidence supporting the claims made by President Trump,” the National Assn. of Secretaries of State said in a statement. “As always, we are open to learning more about the Administration’s concerns.”

So what’s Trump up to? Well, he’s revving up his base. For another thing, if Republican state legislatures and secretaries of state follow his lead, they will curtail, or refuse to expand, vote by mail options. That serves the venerable Republican strategy of voter suppression. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach are past all-stars in this game.

Even if vote by mail options exist, Trump’s campaign may serve to suppress the Democratic vote. An NBC report (“A Trump trap? He’s the one who could get a boost from mail voting glitches”) explains why:

The real danger is a perfect catastrophe of administrative overload, postal delays and voter error that could lead to millions of absentee ballots not counting. And this year, unlike the past, those ballots are likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic.

Mail-in ballots are much more likely to be rejected than ballots cast in person. If Trump’s base votes in person on election day, those votes are more likely to be counted than Democratic votes cast by mail-in ballots. Some estimates suggest that up to 4-percent of mail ballots were rejected in 2016 with no opportunity to remedy any problems (as one might do at a polling place). Furthermore, studies suggest that younger voters and people of color — predominantly Democratic — are more likely to have their ballots disqualified.

If a higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans vote by mail, Democrats will be disadvantaged because of procedural glitches that are apt to multiply this year as the number of mail-in ballots increase — overwhelming some jurisdictions. Add to this a multi-million dollar GOP donor just appointed as Postmaster General, who is imposing changes on the Postal Service that have created backlogs and late deliveries. As a result, there will likely be delays in sending ballots to voters and in receiving voters’ completed ballots in a timely way that ensures that votes are cast and counted.

But there’s more to it than that. Republicans probably can’t suppress enough votes to win in 2020. These tactics, even with an assist from the U.S. Supreme Court, failed in Wisconsin. These cries of fraud and rigged elections serve another purpose, as Richard Hasen has explained:

If most Republicans vote in person and most Democrats vote by mail, Hasen said, that could create a scenario well suited to Trump’s tendency to make unfounded accusations of wrongdoing.  

“As Trump drives more and more of his supporters to vote in person and away from vote-by-mail, it’s quite likely that we’ll see Trump getting many more votes on election night, the votes that are counted on Election Day,” Hasen said in an interview on “The Long Game,” a Yahoo News podcast.

“Then, four or five days later, [if] Biden becomes the winner as the absentee ballots are counted in Philadelphia or Detroit, that’s a recipe, if it’s close, for a really ugly election scenario,” he said.

Election results for Philadelphia’s June 2 primary were not certified for nearly three weeks. The outcome of the June 23 primary in New York’s 6th CD, a victory by challenger Jamaal Bowman over Congressman Eliot Engel, was not clear for more than four weeks. It takes a long time to verify and count ballots received by mail. There will be tens of millions more votes cast in November than have been cast in primaries earlier this year.

The Brooks Brothers riot — in 2000 when Republican operatives from across the country created a mob scene in Miami-Dade County to stop officials from counting votes (after George W. Bush had established a small lead in the state) — is the template for creating chaos in November 2020 in any state where Trump has a slim lead and there are still thousands of ballots to be counted. Only this time the rioters (most of whom were not actually dressed in expensive suits) might be replaced by armed militias in camo. And multiply the rioting across a number of states.

Even if Trump trails in same day voting, if there are tens of thousands of uncounted votes in key states, he could still cry fraud.

Trump’s eruptions about voting by mail all serve as a setup for challenging his defeat in November. Whatever happens on November 3 and after, things have already become ugly.

This scenario is beyond abnormal. But rest assured this will not be Trump’s last off the rails maneuver between now and November 3.

There are 97 days to go.

(Image: from Five Thirty Eight’s average presidential approval July 30.

Democracy, Republicans

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes back against dehumanizing rhetoric towards women

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke to the House of Representatives in reply to Congressman Ted Yoho’s self-congratulatory, excuse-making non-apology after ambushing AOC on the steps of the Capitol.

. . . About two days ago I was walking up the steps of the Capitol when Representative Yoho suddenly turned a corner – and he was accompanied by Representative Roger Williams – and accosted me on the steps right here in front of our nation’s Capitol. I was minding my own business, walking up the steps, and Representative Yoho put his finger in my face. He called me disgusting, he called me crazy, he called me out of my mind, and he called me dangerous.

And then he took a few more steps and after I had recognized his – after I had recognized his comments as rude, he walked away and said: I’m rude. You’re calling me rude.

I took a few steps ahead and I walked inside and cast my vote, because my constituents send me here each and every day to fight for them. And to make sure that they are able to keep a roof over their head, that they are able to feed their families, and that they are able to carry their lives with dignity. I walked back out and there were reporters in the front of the Capitol, and in front of reporters Representative Yoho called me, and I quote, a fucking bitch. These are the words that Representative Yoho levied against a congresswoman. A congresswoman that not only represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, but every congresswoman and every woman in this country. Because all of us have had to deal with this in some form, some way, some shape at some point in our lives.

And I want to be clear that Representative Yoho’s comments were not deeply hurtful or piercing to me. Because I have worked a working-class job. I have waited tables in restaurants. I have ridden the subway. I have walked the streets in New York City. And this kind of language is not new.

I have encountered words uttered by Mr. Yoho and men uttering the same words as Mr. Yoho while I was being harassed in restaurants. I have tossed men out of bars that have used language like Mr. Yoho’s. And I have encountered this type of harassment riding the subway in New York City.

This is not new. And that is the problem. Mr. Yoho was not alone. He was walking shoulder to shoulder with Representative Roger Williams. And that’s when we start to see that this issue is not about one incident. It is cultural. It is a culture of … impunity, of accepting of violence and violent language against women – an entire structure of power that supports that.

Because not only have I been spoken to disrespectfully, particularly by members of the Republican Party, and elected officials in the Republican Party – not just here, but the President of the United States last year told me to go home – to another country – with the implication that I don’t even belong in America. The governor of Florida, Governor DeSantis – before I even was sworn in – called me “a whatever that is.”

Dehumanizing language is not new. And what we are seeing is that incidents like these are happening in a pattern. This is a pattern of an attitude towards women and dehumanization of others.

So while I was not deeply hurt or offended by little comments that are made, when I was reflecting on this, I honestly thought that I was just going to pack it up and go home. It’s just another day, right?

But then yesterday Representative Yoho decided to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and make excuses for his behavior. And that I could not let go. I could not allow my nieces, I could not allow the little girls that I go home to, I could not allow victims of verbal abuse and worse to see that – to see that excuse. And to see our Congress accept it as legitimate and accept it as an apology, and to accept silence as a form of acceptance.

I could not allow that to stand, which is why I’m rising today to raise this point of personal privilege.

And I do not need Representative Yoho to apologize to me. Clearly, he does not want to. Clearly, when given the opportunity, he will not. And I will not stay up late at night waiting for an apology from a man who has no remorse over calling women and using abusive language towards women.

But what I do have issue with is using women, our wives and daughters, as shields and excuses for poor behavior. Mr. Yoho mentioned that he has a wife and two daughters. I am two years younger than Mr. Yoho’s youngest daughter. I am someone’s daughter too. My father, thankfully, is not alive to see how Mr. Yoho treated his daughter. My mother got to see Mr. Yoho’s disrespect on the floor of this house towards me on television. And I am here because I have to show my parents that I am their daughter and that they did not raise me to accept abuse from men.

Now, what I am here to say is that this harm that Mr. Yoho levied, it – tried to levy against me –was not just an incident directed at me. But when you do that to any woman, what Mr. Yoho did was give permission to other men to do that to his daughters.

He – in using that language in front of the press – he gave permission to use that language against his wife, his daughters, women in his community. And I am here to stand up to say that is not acceptable.

I do not care what your views are. It does not matter how much I disagree or how much it incenses me or how much I feel that people are dehumanizing others. I will not do that myself.

I will not allow people to change and create hatred in our hearts. And so what I believe is that having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man. And when a decent man messes up, as we all are bound to do, he tries his best and does apologize. Not to save face. Not to win a vote. He apologizes genuinely to repair and acknowledge the harm done, so that we can all move on.

Lastly, what I want to express to Mr. Yoho is gratitude. I want to thank him for showing the world that you can be a powerful man and accost women. You can have daughters and accost women without remorse. You can be married and accost women. You can take photos and project an image to the world of being a family man and accost women without remorse and with a sense of impunity.

It happens every day in this country. It happened here on the steps of our nation’s Capitol. It happens when individuals who hold the highest office in this land admit – admit to hurting women and using this language against all of us. . . .

Editorial comment: Republican political discourse, campaign strategy, and talking points for the media (whether a friendly FNC or the mainstream press) have — since at least the Gingrich era — characterized Democrats as enemies. Dehumanizing language comes with the territory.

Add to that the MAGA promise to return to the 1950s, which appeals especially to the Christian right, and women — especially women of color — become fair game for Donald Trump’s faction of America. Even on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Even with reporters present.

As AOC put it: Just another day, right?

Democracy, Donald Trump, Off the Rails

Donald Trump, with help from John Yoo, finds “powers that nobody thought the president had”

We’re signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do. So we’re going to solve — we’re going to sign an immigration plan, a health care plan, and various other plans. And nobody will have done what I’m doing in the next four weeks. The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president had, by approving, by doing what they did — their decision on DACA. And DACA’s going to be taken care of also. But we’re getting rid of it because we’re going to replace it with something much better. What we got rid of already, which was most of Obamacare, the individual mandate. And that I’ve already won on. And we won also on the Supreme Court. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we’ve never done before. And you’re going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks. — Donald Trump in an interview with Chris Wallace

When I listened to this interview today, I was baffled by the claim of “powers that nobody thought the president had.” Wallace apparently didn’t know what to make of it either, since he jumped to a question about Mary Trump’s book.

Today, a report by Axios (“Scoop: Trump’s license to skirt the law”) provides the context, an article by John Yoo (the man who defended waterboarding as a national policy, even if it violated federal statutes) in National Review (“How the Supreme Court’s DACA Decision Harms the Constitution, the Presidency, Congress, and the Country”).

The article offers Yoo’s reasoning in the first three sentences:

Suppose President Donald Trump decided to create a nationwide right to carry guns openly. He could declare that he would not enforce federal firearms laws, and that a new “Trump permit” would free any holder of state and local gun-control restrictions.

Even if Trump knew that his scheme lacked legal authority, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency. And, moreover, even if courts declared the permit illegal, his successor would have to keep enforcing the program for another year or two. [Emphasis added.]

Yoo finds justification for this interpretation within the 5-4 opinion written by the Chief Justice (with the 4 liberals concurring). As Yoo puts it (quoting from the text of the opinion):

“Even if it is illegal for DHS to extend work authorization and other benefits to DACA recipients,” Roberts found, DACA “could not be rescinded in full without any consideration whatsoever of a” non-deportation policy other than on the ground of its illegality.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Constitution makes it easy for presidents to violate the law, but reversing such violations difficult — especially for their successors.

Yoo criticizes this decision in National Review, because he believes it allows a president to unduly tie the hands of his successors. (I’m not an attorney, so I may be missing something in thinking that Yoo finds torture at the hands of the federal government more acceptable than deferring deportations of immigrants whose parents brought them into the country as children without legal documentation.)

Regardless of Yoo’s objections, the White House sees a green light for expanding presidential power beyond even the creative imagination (prior to Roberts’ DACA decision) of Bill Barr’s justice department.

This is scary stuff for anyone who has had occasion to fear Trump’s authoritarian impulses.

I’ve concluded a couple of posts recently with warnings (regarding a raging COVID-19) that things will get worse. With Trump in a rage about his polling, the economy, and an out of control epidemic he has tried his best to ignore, we can count on this: Things will get worse — much worse — before January 20, 2021.

(Image: King George III via wikipedia.)

Democracy, Off the Rails

Memo to governors: Are you analyzing risks & benefits? or just winging it when you make policy choices?

Michael Hiltzik writes about the lack of progress, months after the country shut down, in battling the coronavirus. He quotes a physician on the faculty of UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health:

We shut down the country for months, and didn’t do anything during that time to build the infrastructure and processes we needed. . . .

We didn’t use that time to build up our testing capacity, we didn’t think about schools in advance … — Dr. David Eisenman

In short we squandered the time, failing to take advantage of the pause in infections, and in many respects we are back to where we were in April — with shortages of PPE and inadequate testing and tracing — but the number of infections, the rate of infections, and the death toll have all risen, and the fall school term is only weeks away.

In an ideal world, there would be a national strategy in place, but because of an absence of leadership in the White House, responsibility for defeating the coronavirus has fallen to 50 state governors (plus leaders in D.C., Puerto Rico …).

At this stage, leadership at the state level has not served the country well. Watching the various states embrace (and reject) a hodgepodge of policies, and watching individual governors pivot first this way, then that, has hardly inspired confidence. In fact, policies have often been confounding and, if a coherent rationale for specific decisions exists, it has not always been visible.

Emily Oster, an economics professor at Brown University’s Watson Institute, suggests (“Risks & Benefits Matrix”) that governors could clarify their decisions — and I’ll add, make better decisions — if they compared (and revealed to us) risks and benefits of various activities to be permitted or restricted by their policy choices.

There is room for disagreement about social value, so it’s possible to decide that, say, opening bars and sporting events is more important than opening schools. But, let’s hear that choice articulated, so we know that at least the governor has thought things through and is willing to cop to his/her preferences.

Professor Oster offers this graph of her personal policy preferences. Parks (in the upper left quadrant) provide high benefit at low risk. In contrast, gyms and bars find their places in the lower right quadrant (high risk and, on her evaluation, low reward) activities. Opening schools is risky, but may be regarded as providing large rewards (top, right).

Graph from “Risks & Benefits” by Emily Oster.

In practice, of course, many governors appear to have valued bars and gyms more highly than K-12 schools. Other policy anomalies abound across the country.

I’m with Oster (and just as angry): “In my wildest dreams, I’d like to see each of our Governors give a press conference with a picture like this behind them which reflects their policies. It’s not that these policies aren’t defensible, but I would like to see people say: bars have a sufficiently high benefit that I’m prioritizing that over in-person schooling.“

(Emily Oster provides the link to “COVID-19 Be Informed” image from the Texas Medical Association.)

Democracy

New York Times’ editorial — “Reopening Schools… It Must Be Done” — offers a misguided imperative

July 14: revised for clarity and to acknowledge recent developments:

The editorial (“Reopening Schools Will Be a Huge Undertaking. It Must Be Done”) begins:

American children need public schools to reopen in the fall. Reading, writing and arithmetic are not even the half of it. Kids need to learn to compete and to cooperate. They need food and friendships; books and basketball courts; time away from family and a safe place to spend it.

Parents need public schools, too. They need help raising their children, and they need to work.

I agree that schools are essential. Our society and several generations of students will be irreparably harmed if our schools remain closed. So, how do we reopen safely?

Here is what it’s going to take: more money and more space.

The return to school, as with other aspects of pre-pandemic normalcy, rests on the nation’s ability to control the spread of the coronavirus. In communities where the virus is spreading rapidly, school is likely to remain virtual. The rise in case counts across much of the country is jeopardizing even the best-laid plans for classroom education.

We need money — and lots of it: “To maximize in-person instruction, the federal government must open its checkbook.” The editorial advises that districts need “hundreds of billions of dollars” to reopen safely. And, “even in places where the virus is under control, schools lack the means to safely provide full-time instruction.”

I contend that, while an out of control coronavirus spreads across the country in two-thirds of our states, our primary focus should be on communities, not schools. That’s how to keep us safe.

A feature in the Atlantic (“These 8 Basic Steps Will Let Us Reopen Schools”) written by three past federal officials in education and health policy (Thomas R. Frieden, Arne Duncan, and Margaret Spellings) anticipates my objection. Before introducing their eight steps, the authors acknowledge:

The single most important thing we can do to keep our schools safe has nothing to do with what happens in schools. It’s how well communities control the coronavirus throughout the community. Such control of COVID-19 requires adhering to the three W’s—wear a mask, wash your hands, watch your distance—and boxing in the virus with strategic testing, effective isolation, complete contact tracing, and supportive quarantine—providing services and, if necessary, alternative temporary housing so patients and contacts don’t spread disease to others. [Emphasis added.]

Boxing in the virus is job number one. We need to get this done before we bring students back to campuses.

Embedded in step number eight in the Atlantic piece — “prepare for cases” — is this: “All contacts of new cases must be traced and quarantined.”

That’s a task for the broader community, not just schools. From my vantage point in Los Angeles, we are still failing at testing, tracing, and quarantining. We’re not even close to getting this right. (New York State may be another story.) The Los Angeles Unified School District agrees with this judgment (“L.A. Unified will not reopen campuses for start of school year amid coronavirus spike”). But there is great resistance to making the call to keep campuses closed.

Texas is requiring all schools in the state to have on-campus instruction. Other states will likely follow unless the infection rates and deaths rise to a level that makes this unsustainable. In other words, the decision about on-campus (vs. remote) learning may be made by outsiders, not leaders nearest students, teachers, and families. The Trump administration is pushing schools to reopen to get students out of the house, so parents can go back to work. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is pushing for reopening without an inkling of how to keep students safe.

School districts may also put aside principles of public health in a rush to reopen. By a 4-1 vote, the Orange County Board of Education endorsed the conclusion that neither masks, nor social distancing were necessary on reopened school campuses.

The white paper the board released in support of this stance asserted: “Requiring children to wear masks during school is not only difficult – if not impossible to implement – but not based on science. It may even be harmful and is therefore not recommended.”

The final sentence is absolutely not based on science, though it may be a rightwing talking point. We have much to learn about coronavirus, but we know enough – based on public health authorities, rather than political figures – to regard the unequivocal rejection of masks and social distancing with skepticism.

If, with rising infection rates in the community, schools reopen, the number of cases and resulting deaths will continue to rise. Just as communities differ, not all school districts are created equal. The NYT’s editorial board advises us that there are 13,000 schools districts in this country. To accept their demand that we reopen schools would have highly inequitable consequences from place to place. The impact on poor and minority communities, which are already experiencing disproportionate harm from coronavirus, is likely to be especially severe.

I have other qualms with the NYT editorial. Advocacy for public spending to secure “among other things, the installation of physical barriers in common areas, increased cleaning and daily health checks” and to find “twice as much room” for classrooms to ensure physical distancing, makes sense if community spread is not out of control. (This may be true in New York, though if it’s not true in two-thirds of the country, states in the Northeast — including New York — continue to be vulnerable.)

As a country, spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for plexiglass barriers and assembling classrooms in gymnasiums may not be the best use of federal dollars. Shouldn’t we focus first and foremost on putting a national plan in place to defeat the coronavirus across the country (even if New Yorkers believe they’re safe enough right now), and on securing funding to that end, before trying to reopen schools, most of which are in or much too near to hotspots to be safe?

Trying to manage around a raging epidemic is highly risky (and extraordinarily expensive), though I grant that we have no choice. (Perhaps changing ‘misguided’ to ‘parochial’ in my headline would have better represented my visceral, and perhaps parochial, objection to the Times’ editorial.)

In my view, doing our utmost to snuff out the epidemic is a higher calling than reopening schools. It affects the whole country (even places where the virus has receded for a time), not just a relatively few fortunate school districts.

It’s tempting – with Trump in the White House – to give up on defeating the coronavirus. But until we succeed, we have no prospect for putting an end to rampant, senseless illness, suffering, and death.

It must be done, or we have failed as a nation.

(Image, which accompanied NYT editorial, by Nicholas Konrad.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump

Donald Trump escalates cultural war to divide Americans as the 2020 election looms

Three big issues confront the country right now: the coronavirus epidemic, which rages out of control in the United States; the stalled economy, with businesses shuttered and millions unemployed, that the epidemic has brought; and protests across the country that have shifted Americans’ attitudes (at least for a time) regarding deeply rooted racial injustices.

Regarding the first and foremost issue, the President made one reference to the virus in his speech – in the fourth paragraph, wedged between thank yous to “the very talented Blue Angels,” and to the two Republican senators and the Republican Congressman from South Dakota. “Let us also send our deepest thanks to our wonderful veterans, law enforcement, first responders, and the doctors, nurses, and scientists working tirelessly to kill the virus.  They’re working hard.”

Apart from the phrase, “working hard,” Trump didn’t reference the economy at all, much less the economic hardship Americans confront right now.

Regarding the reckoning over race, the President stood fast with his base, (mostly white) folks who are culturally anxious about demographic change in America, and rigidly opposed to predominantly young, multiethnic street protesters who welcome change. The President’s remarks validated the separation of Americans into these two camps, and extolled one and vilified the other.

Trump takes the stage at Mount Rushmore: PBS.

THE PRESIDENT: … as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

AUDIENCE:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.  Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing.  They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive.  But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE PRESIDENT:   One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.  This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.  (Applause.)  This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly.  We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life.  (Applause.)

In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us.  (Applause.)

Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.  In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress.

To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.

[White House transcript; emphasis added.]

Confederate battle flag: Wikipedia.

Should there be any doubt that champions of the Confederacy (who, in defense of their right to own slaves, waged war against the United States of America) are to be remembered as part of “our national heritage,” the President has done his best to offer confirmation.

Trump opposes renaming Fort Bragg and other military bases named after Confederate Army officers, and removing Confederate statues and monuments.

He demands that the only prominent Black driver in NASCAR apologize, though he doesn’t say what he should apologize for, and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEneny doesn’t know either.

He threatens to undermine a rule designed to end residential segregation.

He tweets a video of a Trump supporter calling out, “White power.”

He asserts that a sign proclaiming, ‘Black Lives Matter’ is “a symbol of hate.”

Trump is waging a cultural war against an internal enemy. It’s us vs. them. Just in case the sides weren’t clear enough, he namechecks the opposition party. “The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.”

 While Trump’s address at Mount Rushmore is crafted in a way that appears, in places, as a call for unity, that’s rhetorical gaslighting. The point is to divide: “In the face of lies meant to divide us, demoralize us, and diminish us, we will show that the story of America unites us, inspires us, includes us all, and makes everyone free.” And, as we can see from the broader context (the Trump we see and hear every day, not just on July Fourth when he reads from a teleprompter) – from Trump’s leading role in the birther conspiracy to his tweet celebrating racially offensive names for NFL and MLB teams, the animus toward Black people (past and present), people of color, and their allies, is abundantly clear.

The subtext is racial. And the folks cheering him on in the Black Hills of South Dakota understand perfectly well what he is communicating. (CSA! CSA! CSA!) From Mitch McConnell to Bill Barr to John Roberts – every Republican in Washington understands perfectly well what he is communicating.

Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy, but ran as a centrist (wedged between Humphrey and Wallace) in 1968, as someone who could calm the country. Pat Buchanan wrote a memo to Nixon in 1971 that recommended ways to exploit racial tensions among Democrats. They could, he wrote, “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

Donald Trump — determined to split the country in half — has amplified fear, hostility, and racial conflict more openly than any president in my lifetime (post-WWII) has done. In 2020, Joe Biden and his multiracial coalition may well claim “the larger half.”

So I hope.

(Image of the shackles at the feet of the Statue of Liberty: National Park Service. “In 1886, The Statue of Liberty was a symbol of democratic government and Enlightenment ideals as well as a celebration of the Union’s victory in the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery.“)

Democracy, Donald Trump

Juneteenth, Confederate statues and flags, Tulsa, race-baiting, and the strange career of Jim Crow

Major General Gordon Granger issued General Order No. 3 on June 19, 1865 after arriving at District Headquarters in Galveston, Texas on the 18th :

“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.”

Juneteenth has been a holiday in Texas since 1980. Ed Kilgore asks what it will take to make it a national holiday.

That may be as difficult as overcoming Republicans’ objections to ridding the Capitol of Confederate statues. Or getting NASCAR fans to put away their Confederate flags — which are as rich in historical symbolism as nooses.

Donald Trump found an historic setting — Tulsa, Oklahoma, site of a race massacre that killed hundreds of Black residents and burned 40 square blocks of the Greenwood district (“The Burning of Black Wall Street, Revisited” by Brent Staples) on June 1, 1921 — to relaunch his campaign after a coronavirus hiatus.

Trump offered the usual fare — including a ample portion of “white racial grievance” — to his assembled fans, as described by Jose A. Del Real (“With ‘kung flu,’ ‘thugs,’ and ‘our heritage,’ Trump leans on racial grievance as he reaches for a campaign reset”):

He referred to the disease caused by the novel coronavirus as the “kung flu.” He called racial justice demonstrators “thugs.” He attacked efforts to take down Confederate statues as an assault on “our heritage.” And in an ominous hypothetical, he described a “very tough hombre” breaking into a young woman’s home while her husband is away.

Today Trump is doubling down on race-baiting:

“Historically presidents have tried to calm tensions and not stoke them but elect a racist reality television host….” — Molly Jong-Fast 

“There’s a not-terribly-subtle subculture of white nationalists and neo-Nazis who share video footage of black people assaulting white people, trying to make images they believe will incite race hatred go viral. Anyhow, the president of the US is a key member of that community.” — Brian Beutler 

“The President of the United States is sharing videos of crimes committed by black people to push back on the notion that racism is a problem in our society.” — Aaron Rupar

Last summer, Brian Stelter reviewed Trump’s history of race-baiting, suggesting that “The pattern is the big story.”

These events brought to mind a passage in C. Van Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow describing white Southerners’ frustration at the economic, political, and social crises of the 1890s:

There had to be a scapegoat. And all along the line signals were going up to indicate that the Negro was the approved object of aggression. These ‘permissions-to-hate’ came from sources that had formerly denied such permission. They came from the federal courts in numerous opinions, from Northern liberals eager to conciliate the South, from Southern conservatives who had abandoned their race policy of moderation in their struggle against the Populists, from the Populists in their mood of disillusionment with their former Negro allies, and from a national temper suddenly expressed by imperialistic adventures and aggressions against colored peoples in distant lands. But for the majority it came much easier to blame the Negro for their defeat, to make him the scapegoat, and to vent upon him the pent up accumulation of bitterness against the legitimate offenders who had escaped their wrath.

“The pattern is the big story.” Donald Trump has been offering 21st century permissions-to-hate from the White House since his inauguration.

The public protests and other activity across the country may suggest that the tide is turning. Time will tell how well and how far things go with efforts to reform police culture and, more broadly, to change the status of Black Americans.

The prospects of ridding the White House of Donald Trump — critical if we are to see meaningful change — are going to play out in unpredictable ways over the next four and a half months. The story from Tulsa — where few participants wore masks, but attendance fell far short of campaign-generated expectations — was mixed.

The small crowd and rows of empty seats in Tulsa last week actually restored a measure of my faith in human nature. For all his lies, and hate, and divisiveness — which his supporters either celebrate or accept in stride — it was reassuring to think (at least last week at the BOK Center) that the Republican base is not so gullible as to believe every tale the fabulist in the White House (and Fox News Channel) spins.

Donald Trump is not even trying to defeat the coronavirus. He’s trying to wish it away. And at least a portion of his base knows it is still here. Score one for common sense over motivated reasoning.

Trump returns from Tulsa. Photo by Patrick Semansky / Associated Press in Los Angeles Times.

Finally, a note about style: ‘Black’ is the new black. “Why hundreds of American newsrooms have started capitalizing the ‘b’ in Black,” describes a step toward “affirming the experience and existence of an entire group of people who built this country and have contributed to every sector.”