Sunday, July 17, 2022

Vince McMahon's hush-money scandal: A window into Trump's America
Irvin Muchnick, Salon
July 16, 2022

Donald Trump, Vince McMahain, Steve Austin (Photo via AFP)

The Wall Street Journal last month broke the story of WWE mogul Vince McMahon's payments of hush money to an office paralegal whom he had coerced into a sexual relationship. Since then, the Journal's reporting has expanded into revelations that McMahon, over the years, paid out a total of $12 million to silence current or former WWE employees who alleged sexual harassment. The claims also extended to WWE's top executive for talent relations, John Laurinaitis (brother of the late "Road Warrior Animal," Joe Laurinaitis, and uncle of former NFL linebacker James Laurinaitis).

As chronicled by the newspaper of record of the financial ruling class, these long-whispered scandals became an affair of state. Following its origins as a third-generation northeastern promotional stronghold of pro wrestling's pre-cable territorial era, WWE is now a publicly traded multinational corporation on the New York Stock Exchange. After the first Wall Street Journal report, McMahon resigned as chair and CEO of WWE. He was replaced by his daughter Stephanie, who plays Christie, the enlightened and strong feminist heir, to Vince's Hugh Hefner. (Stephanie is married to former wrestler and current company executive Paul "Triple H" Levesque.)

Today we inhabit a world of sexual politics that understands Hollywood's Harvey Weinstein as the operator of a systematic and criminal casting couch. So it's no big surprise that the sui generis entertainment of wrestling has been run by a similarly iron-fisted chieftain's code of exploitation.

Nor, at this stage of the failed state that is the United States of America, is it much more than a pop culture cliché to point out that wrestling's histrionics and reality-TV M.O. were a metaphor for the rise of Donald Trump. The 45th president, who continues to lurk in hope of an authoritarian sequel, is a decades-long crony of Vince McMahon and his wife Linda (who was head of the Small Business Administration under Trump). Trump performed in WWE shticks, hosted two early WrestleMania pay-per-view extravaganzas at his now defunct Atlantic City casino, spurred record buy numbers at a later one and is a proud inductee of the WWE Hall of Fame.

Beginning nearly 40 years ago, I wrote some of the earliest major articles that took the wrestling industry seriously and explored the relationship between its explosion and the breakdown of regulations, specifically, and of civil society, generally – for publications such as Penthouse, Washington Monthly and Spy. So I am here to review that story, but also to do more.

Yes, the wrestling-ization of America, like the Trumpfication of America, has been insidious and inexorable. But it has not been inevitable. In the case of Vince McMahon, there were rope guides to his ascent. And there were missed opportunities, by the media and most especially by prosecutors. There was one huge missed opportunity to take him down nearly 30 years ago.


* * *

In the early 1990s, I was writing items about sex and drug scandals in what was then called the World Wrestling Federation for the "Jockbeat" column of New York's Village Voice. The headline story then was reports of sexual harassment and sexual abuse of teenage "ring boys" by company employees Mel Phillips and Terry Garvin. These were kids, mostly from broken homes, who worked for little or nothing setting up and tearing down the wrestling ring on tours and performing other gopher tasks. (Phillips and Garvin have long since died.)

Is it more than a pop culture cliché to point out that wrestling's histrionics and reality-TV M.O. serve as a metaphor for the rise of Donald Trump?

The whistleblower of the ring boy scandal was named Tom Cole. The journalist who gave the story legs was New York Post sports columnist Phil Mushnick. Cole's sad tale played out across decades, culminating in his suicide earlier this year at age 50. (Mushnick himself paid a price, warding off an expensive WWF libel suit, which was eventually dropped. I was subpoenaed by WWF but refused to cooperate, citing California's journalist shield law.)

In 1992, Cole was poised to tell all in a live shoot of Phil Donahue's show, one of the early syndicated TV talk-shout-fests. Just before he was to go on, the McMahons bought off Cole with a $150,000 settlement, almost all of which wound up in the pocket of his lawyer, Alan Fuchsberg.

WWF then rehired Cole and set him up in college courses. That arrangement collapsed when the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York sought Cole's cooperation in a grand jury investigation of the company for broad charges of both sex crimes and illegal steroid use (designed to buff the look of kiddie idol Hulk Hogan and other star performers).

Cole was torn. Over the years, the aggressiveness of his public testimony waxed and waned. Yet at no point did he ever speak untruthfully about the abuse he and other ring boys had endured. In this chapter of the story, WWF fired him with the claim that he was sloughing off in their humanitarian mission to educate and equip him for a productive adult career. In truth, the company was freaked because Cole was talking with prosecutors.

Cole went on to get married, have children and own a small business. In 2010, when Linda McMahon was making the first of her two failed runs for a U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut — sinking a total of $100 million of the family fortune in the process — journalists sought out Cole's story (along with many others from oppo research, such as the McMahons' various shady business practices and their mysterious emergence from a 1976 bankruptcy). No one knows exactly what transactions transpired behind the scenes. In the end, Cole spoke out in support of Linda during her political campaign.

Meanwhile, within WWF (which in 2002 would become WWE, in the settlement of a trademark lawsuit by the World Wildlife Fund), it was a source of great mirth in the early 1990s and beyond that the workplace was a platform of widespread abuse and harassment of boys, women and wrestlers. A real hoot. Former wrestler Billy Jack Haynes said that when he showered after matches, he had to be careful about bending down for a bar of soap.

In interviews hyping his own matches, star wrestler Shawn Michaels made inside jokes about his mastery of a move he called the "Pat Patterson go-behind." Patterson, who died in 2020, was a wrestling great who had become Vince McMahon's top lieutenant for booking matches and crafting storylines. He was openly gay. Some of the whispers about the company's toxic culture did indeed represent classic homophobia. Others did not.

During the most intense period of my work for the Village Voice, I received calls weekly, sometimes more frequently, from McMahon's principal lawyer and mouthpiece, Jerry McDevitt, a partner in the firm then known as Kilpatrick & Lockhart — now K&L Gates (it later merged with the Seattle firm of Bill Gates' father). One of McDevitt's underlings, Rick Santorum, had been WWF's Pennsylvania lobbyist in the successful quest to defang the state athletic commission there in its oversight of boxing and wrestling. Santorum went on to become a Republican U.S. senator and 2012 presidential candidate.

(See my interview for a 2012 Mother Jones article about Santorum and wrestling. And American Lawyer's 2011 article about my verbal mano a mano with McDevitt.)

In 1992, McDevitt's message to me was that Vince McMahon and WWF were in no way under federal investigation. One Saturday afternoon he called me to press this point, citing two facts in support. One, all targets of federal investigations had to be notified by the U.S. attorney, and McMahon had received no such notification letter. Two, McDevitt had in his possession a letter from the U.S. attorney explicitly assuring McMahon that he was not a target.

On the first point, I spoke to Mary Jo White, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney for the Brooklyn-based Eastern District of New York and was later U.S. attorney for the Manhattan-based Southern District, and then the head of the SEC under Barack Obama. (She is now a senior partner at the Debevoise & Plimpton law firm.) White told me that McDevitt's description of the notification procedure was not entirely accurate.

Decades later, through the work of independent journalist David Bixenspan, I came upon the explanation for McDevitt's second assertion. Bixenspan uncovered a contemporaneous letter in which a U.S. attorney did indeed tell McMahon that he was not under federal investigation. But that letter was from an entirely different federal prosecutor, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. McMahon was a target in New York.

Bixenspan's reporting also clarified an amusing anecdote from that period. The late Frank Deford, the author and Sports Illustrated writer, used his weekly National Public Radio commentary segment to call on Hulk Hogan to come clean about his steroid use. Vince McMahon called Deford and, in the course of a long rant, screamed, "I can prove I'm not a mobster!" Since Deford had never accused McMahon of being a mobster, both he and I were amused. Through the Freedom of Information Act, however, Bixenspan would uncover a government document showing that wrestler Superstar Billy Graham had worn a wire for a conversation with McMahon, at the behest of federal prosecutors seeking a link between the WWF and organized crime. (For the record, I don't think McMahon is a mobster. He just acts like one.)

The grand jury investigation of WWF was run by Sean O'Shea, chief of the business/securities fraud section of the Eastern District. He blew it, accumulating massive evidence of sexual abuse and associated racketeering within the company, but never used any of it to indict anyone. He went after the drugs instead.

Federal prosecutors accumulated massive evidence of sexual abuse and associated racketeering within WWF, but never tried to indict McMahon or anyone else.

In 1991, a WWF ringside physician in Pennsylvania, George Zahorian, had gone to federal prison as a result of the first prosecution under a statute that criminalized the prescription of anabolic steroids for non-therapeutic purposes. Zahorian was notorious for his handing out steroid scripts to wrestlers backstage as he took their blood pressure before syndicated TV shows in Allentown. Evidence at his trial revealed that he had shipped drugs to a long list of patients, including Hulk Hogan and McMahon himself.

It was not exactly a bombshell revelation that professional wrestlers' cartoon physiques were pharmaceutically aided. Eventually, O'Shea indicted McMahon on charges of conspiracy to distribute steroids. Unfortunately for the government's case, the chain of evidence was weak. WWF was tipped off that Zahorian was "hot" shortly before his arrest, and had already dropped him as their ringside doctor in eastern Pennsylvania. (The McMahons had made this decision over the objection of Pat Patterson, who, according to an internal company memo, argued, "The boys need their candy.")

McMahon was acquitted at trial in 1994. A subsequent investigation of witness tampering, involving the testimony of McMahon's secretary, Emily Feinberg — a former Playboy model rumored to be his onetime lover — resulted in no further charges. Allegedly Feinberg had been approached by a notorious fixer and Rudy Giuliani crony named Marty Bergman, who happened to be the ne'er-do-well brother of journalist Lowell Bergman, the "60 Minutes" producer portrayed by Al Pacino in Michael Mann's 1999 film "The Insider," about the groundbreaking investigation of the tobacco industry.

Marty Bergman was the boyfriend of Laura Brevetti, who was Vince McMahon's lead defense attorney at the trial. Representing himself as a producer for a TV tabloid show interested in buying the rights to her story, Bergman got so much information out of Feinberg about her upcoming testimony that Brevetti's eventual cross-examination of her was a piece of cake.

When Bergman and Brevetti were married, the ceremony took place at City Hall in Manhattan, with Mayor Rudy Giuliani officiating. (Bergman died in 2008.)

By 1997, even though he had dodged prison and become the first promoter to tap wrestling's global multimedia merchandising potential, McMahon was seriously on the ropes. Ted Turner, whose TBS superstation carried a competitive wrestling promotion, bought in and spent big, unburdened by the need to pretend he was seriously concerned with drug testing. For a time during the famous "Monday Night Wars," Turner's World Championship Wrestling show, "Nitro," was consistently besting WWF's "Raw."

But McMahon was more tenacious and smarter — or at least wrestling-smarter — and within a few years he had prevailed in the war and crushed WCW. The creative turning point came when McMahon had an epiphany and turned himself into a WWF character, "Mr. McMahon," who became the company's leading "heel," or bad guy. In 1999, WWF went into orbit, for the second and definitive time, behind the ongoing feud between McMahon and antihero "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. That golden age is now fondly remembered as the Attitude Era.

In October of that year, McMahon took his company public. The initial public offering, or IPO, was launched the same week as that of Martha Stewart. (Amazing but true: McMahon never went to jail, but Stewart did.)

In preparation for his coming out on Nasdaq (WWE later switched to the New York Stock Exchange), McMahon gave New York magazine access for a cover profile. In the interview, he scoffed at prosecutors' overreach five years earlier, stating falsely that he had been convicted on one count. (In fact, he was acquitted on all counts.) According to company insiders, Vince thought this spin made him come across as even more of an anti-government, anti-elitist outlaw. Dave Meltzer, the publisher of Wrestling Observer Newsletter, told me that during the period of the New York interview, McMahon had affixed a note to his wrist to remind himself of this crucial talking point.

In 2010, during Linda McMahon's first Senate campaign, the family threatened Talking Points Memo with a lawsuit over the revival of an old story, first reported on Geraldo Rivera's TV show in 1992, that Vince had raped WWF's first female referee, Rita Chatterton, in his limousine in 1986.

Vincent Kennedy McMahon. Donald John Trump. Rudolf William Louis Giuliani. Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea, John Cena, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson — and a cast of thousands. These are some of the names, and this is some of the detritus, that future historians will be forced to comb through when they attempt to make sense of the strange and disturbing epoch during which we live.
‘Direct hit’: ‘Space Weather Woman’ predicts massive solar storm to strike Earth
Bob Brigham
July 16, 2022

Icelandic spiral northern lights in autumn time / Shutterstock.

One of the world's leading space science experts predicted a "direct hit" from a solar storm.

Dr. Tamitha Skov, known as the "Space Weather Woman," is a research scientist at the federally funded Aerospace Corporation and is an award-winning science educator on social media.

On Saturday, she posted a NASA prediction model video.

"Direct Hit!" she predicted. "A snake-like filament launched as a big solar storm while in the Earth-strike zone."

"NASA predicts impact early July 19. Strong Aurora shows possible with this one, deep into mid-latitudes," she explained.

She said there could be disruption to GPS and amateur radio.


Less than an hour later she posted a five-second video of the sun.

"The long snake-like filament cartwheeled its way off the Sun in a stunning ballet," she wrote.

"The magnetic orientation of this Earth-directed solar storm is going to be tough to predict. G2-level (possibly G3) conditions may occur if the magnetic field of this storm is oriented southward!" she explained.

Israeli apartheid as viewed from the UN
Meet Francesca Albanese, the UN’s new Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory

BY OMAR AZIZ JULY 16, 2022 0
MONDOWEISS
FRANCESCA ALBANESE

For its latest live show, Palestine Deep Dive interviewed Francesca Albanese, the United Nation’s new Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory.

The show titled “Illuminating Israel’s Apartheid at the UN”, takes a closer look at the role of the Special Rapporteur and its mandate, and what challenges Albanese may face as she progresses through her six year tenure which commenced in May, earlier this year.

Mark Seddon, PDD’s show host who also worked for the UN both as a speechwriter for former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and as a media advisor for the former President of the General Assembly, María Fernanda Espinosa, begins by highlighting some of Albanese’s previous work in the field of international law:

“She is also an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, Washington D.C. and the Senior Advisor on Migration and Forced Displacement for think tank Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development. She also co-founded the Global Network on the Question of Palestine and recently published Palestinian Refugees In International Law, with Oxford Press. She’s worked for various UN agencies including Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and also the United Nations Works and Relief Agency for Palestine (UNRWA).”

The Mandate and its Limitations

Kicking off the questions, Seddon asks what the mandate from the Human Rights Council grants Albanese in this unpaid UN position, she recently took over from her predecessor Michael Lynk.

“My role entails certain responsibility, as you said, investigating human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories – what remains of historical Palestine,” she responds.

“There are two important limitations to my mandate. One is the temporal, and one is geographic. This doesn’t render justice to what the Palestinians as a people have endured and the kind of justice they are really seeking. At the same time, I do think that there are ways to act and deliver on that mandate in a way that doesn’t inflict further pain and further injustice on the Palestinians.”

Elaborating on the temporal limitations to her mandate, Albanese says:

“I cannot go back in history where it’s necessary, meaning what are the root causes of the situation in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, as it’s called, or the situation of Palestine. I cannot go back to ’48 or 1922 because this is, for me, the beginning of the problem. It goes hand in hand with European colonialism and European antisemitism.”

“I would not be able to investigate that,” she continues, “but, actually, my mandate covers 1967. So as of 1967, yes, I can comment and analyze and I will do. Also, it doesn’t mean that I cannot look back at history and draw some conclusions that allow me to underpin my analysis.”

Asked whether she feels confident that the UN will even acknowledge her findings, in light of Israel recently vowing not to engage with her at the UN whatsoever, and given the Vice President’s position of the General Assembly is currently occupied by an Israeli representative, she responds:

“Well, I think they will be forced to because I cannot expect not to have my reports listened to.”

She continues,“…it’s unacceptable that a member state doesn’t cooperate with a UN-independent expert. I’ve been mandated by the Human Rights Council so now whatever the perceptions, I should be respected for the role, for the responsibilities I carry.”

Seddon responds: “Well, indeed, and having worked for the General Assembly and the Secretariat, what you say is absolutely correct. There’s no doubt about all of that. If the Israelis decide they don’t want to engage with you, well, I suppose they’ll be drawing attention to themselves.”

And questioned whether she’ll even be able to enter Palestine to carry out her work, Albanese stresses the illegitimacy of Israel’s travel restrictions:

“…reminder, Israel has no sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territory. Which means that if I’m invited by the Palestinian Authority to visit the occupied Palestinian territory starting with the West Bank, Israel cannot prevent me or the Commission of Inquiry or the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which, by the way, it’s two years that it’s [been] prevented from entering [and] getting visas to work in the oPt, not in Israel. My mandate is the occupied Palestinian territory so I’m not planning to go to Israel and investigate Israel’s wrongdoing vis-a-vis the Israeli citizens but I need to go to the West Bank and Gaza and that I will do.”
Illuminating and Dismantling Israel’s Apartheid

In light of the growing consensus surrounding the true facts on the ground following reports from organizations such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch which expose Israel’s apartheid, and echoing what Palestinians have been saying for decades, there are now growing calls for the UN to take such claims seriously and act accordingly.

Writer and activist Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington DC, pitches an audience question asking how civil society can encourage the reopening of the now paused Special Committee Against Apartheid (established by the UN in 1962) and “crucially” the Center Against Apartheid, which started in 1976 in the UN Secretariat under the name “Unit on Apartheid”.

“It’s very important to keep momentum because Apartheid is a word that resonates very well and profoundly with a European with Western public…” Albanese responds.

“Stay united, work with – not unified – but with common messages. Have a strategy because it seems that also this is part and parcel of the fragmentation. There are people running in different directions. The apartheid discourse has somewhat unified the movement. Keep on pushing in order to dismantle the apartheid regime starting with dismantling occupation, because this is, eventually, the vehicle that has emboldened, it has allowed the realization of an apartheid regime – and it’s outside the realm of international law, just to be clear where do I stand on this.”
The Case of Ahmad Manasra

Turning to a specific case Albanese has selected to focus on during the first portion of her tenure, Seddon pitches a question on the situation of Palestinian prisoner Ahmad Manasra.

“…his case has been haunting me since the very beginning, since I saw the scenes of this boy, no matter what he had done, no child should be treated the way he’s been treated,” says Albanese.

“The footage of him, broken bones, laying on the ground under a barrage of insults, and then fiercely interrogated by an adult being tormented through the interrogation after being in hospital, chained to bed and spoon fed by someone who is not his mom.”

In 2015, Manasra then 13-years-old and his 15-year-old cousin were accused of stabbing two Israelis in the Pisgat Ze’ev settlement in the occupied West Bank. Ahmad was hit by a car soon after whereas his cousin was shot dead at the scene. An Israeli crowd is seen jeering at him in now viral footage as he lay motionless, bleeding on the ground.

“Ahmad was 13 when he was arrested and then he’s been convicted and there have been so many irregularities that I cannot go through them, but what I’ve done is to take this case as soon as I came into the job and do everything that is in my power. By writing letters, by joining the international advocacy campaign, there will be– Yes, I would come out more vocally in the coming days, but I’m not going to let go. This is a case that needs to be exposed. It’s not a unique camp.”

Albanese goes on to emphasize that Manasra’s case sits in the broader context of Israel’s regime of systematic detention and incarceration of Palestinians without trial, “there are 670 people in administrative detention.”

“Unbelievable,” Seddon responds.

Medical reports find that Manasra suffers from schizophrenia and human rights experts report that such harsh treatment which he continues to endure, including solitary confinement for extended periods, “may amount to torture”. Appeals for his early release were rejected last month, despite a significant deterioration in his mental health causing him to be hospitalised, due to Israel’s sweeping “Counter-Terrorism” laws.

Today, UN experts, including Albanese, have officially urged Israel to immediately release him.
Shireen Abu Akleh

Albanese responds to an audience question on whether she is satisfied with progress into the “quest for justice” for the killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and whether the UN can do anything:

“There have been investigations carried out by media groups and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has forensic and legal expertise. They came out with a pretty solid conclusion that has been completely ignored by the Americans. Again, I do think that the United Nations need to step up their efforts.”

“I’ve received the request to investigate on the case. I think that the most appropriate body should be the Commission of Inquiry on Israel/Palestine as part of any investigation over the killing and the targeting of journalists, because killing of Akleh, unfortunately, was not the first case of journalists killed while in line of duty. And so there is this body, which is better equipped, I would say, than myself or other Special Rapporteurs. Actually, it’s the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC [International Criminal Court] which should try to go in and investigate on these cases because they’ve received the formal submissions to do so on many cases of journalists killed in line of duty in occupied Palestine.”
Decades of Impunity

Albanese illuminates Israel’s ongoing forcible displacement of Palestinians, a war crime under international law, and calls on the international community to act:

“Forcibly displaced population under occupation is a grave bridge of the Fourth Geneva convention, and is even a war crime. So now the point is, how to stop this from continuing to happen because it has happened, and it has happened at least since from 1967. Again, this is my mandate so let me speak to it, but I am very happy that there is the Commission of Inquiry created by the Human Rights Council in 2021 which will look at Israel and Palestine more comprehensively.”

She also emphasizes how international institutions, such as the European Union, could apply pressure on Israel for its violations of human rights by abiding with clauses within their own trade agreements:

“What should happen is the resort to the measures prescribed by United Nations Charter to reduce these kind of violations. There are political measures, diplomatic measures, economic measures, and more if there is no limit to the impunity. Also, for example, the European Union has a trade agreement with Israel that has a clause that refers to ‘serious violations of human rights’ as a course for terminating the agreement. I think that that threshold has been crossed and still starting with taking measures in prescribed, allowed for by international law, is what is really necessary here because condemnation is not enough.”

Not shying away from the broader impact Israeli exceptionalism and impunity has on the so-called “rules-based” international order, Albanese stresses:

“It’s leading to an erosion of the multilateral system and the multilateral order, which doesn’t afford for ‘pick and choose’ when it comes to international law and doesn’t afford for international law to be used more harshly against certain states and more leniently vis-à-vis the allies. Yes, it’s in the name of the value of international order that I advocate for a return to international law.”

Albanese’s first report to the UN General Assembly will focus on the Palestinian right to self-determination, “international law demands and requests that any people realize first and foremost, the right to self-determination. This is critical and it’s key and occupation is not compatible with the right of self-determination,” she says.

“Apartheid, which has used a military occupation for 55 years, is not compatible with self-determination. And not letting self-determination translate into freedom from external control is what should concern the President of United States, like any other country engaged with the issue of Israel/Palestine.”

Closing the show, Albanese declares, “I don’t like to be called Pro-Palestinian because this has never been the case for me. I am in favor of justice, I am in favor of legality.”

Follow Francesca Albanese on Twitter to keep up with her work @FranceskAlbs.

Frederick Douglass on ‘Regarding Slavery as the Basis of Wealth’


He found that Black workers in the North lived better than most slaveholders he’d seen in the South


Groundhog Notes
Jul 11,2022

Dear Readers:

In The UnPopulist’s Fourth of July offering, the inimitable Deirdre McCloskey, bard of the liberal market economy, probed history and economics to demonstrate that but for slavery, America would have been even richer today. That horrible institution was not the true engine of the United States’ extraordinary economic growth, contrary to the belief in progressive circles. In particular, she discussed the sudden and dramatic increase in personal wealth that occurred not with the spread of slavery, but with the rise of liberalism’s signature belief that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. These rights included, as McCloskey put it, the “equal liberty of ordinary people to have a go” at a livelihood without the permission of lords and kings. This freedom was antithetical to slavery.

McCloskey’s piece quickly became one of TU’s most popular commentaries. Moreover, it sent our resident Groundhog burrowing through TU’s library, excitedly reminding us that a great American had chronicled the striking difference between slavery and a more liberal marketplace over 160 years ago.

Hence we offer the following excerpt from My Bondage and My Freedom, the second autobiography of Frederick Douglass, an ex-slave whose penetrating speeches and writings rendered him the liberal conscience of 19th century America. This passage describes Douglass’ impressions upon arriving at the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts, just weeks after his escape from slavery in Maryland in 1838. New Bedford residents often discriminated against Black people, as Douglass observed elsewhere in the book, but the contrast with slavery was unmistakable. “I was now living in a new world,” he wrote, “and was wide awake to its advantages.”

These advantages prompted Douglass to reflect on their source. His conclusions anticipate McCloskey’s thesis about the revolutionary right to choose one’s trade and keep one’s earnings—and they do so in the forceful, straightforward style that established his fame. You’ll want to read on.

Tom Shull
Editor-at-Large
Twitter: @thomasashull

Sixth-plate daguerreotype of Frederick Douglass, circa 1850, 
retouched by Scewing: Wikimedia Commons


The reader will be amused at my ignorance, when I tell the notions I had of the state of northern wealth, enterprise, and civilization. Of wealth and refinement, I supposed the north had none. …

The impressions I had received were all wide of the truth. New Bedford, especially, took me by surprise, in the solid wealth and grandeur there exhibited.

I had formed my notions respecting the social condition of the free states, by what I had seen and known of free, white, non-slaveholding people in the slave states. Regarding slavery as the basis of wealth, I fancied that no people could become very wealthy without slavery. A free white man, holding no slaves, in the country, I had known to be the most ignorant and poverty-stricken of men, and the laughing stock even of slaves themselves—called generally by them, in derision, “poor white trash.” Like the non-slaveholders at the south, in holding no slaves, I suppose the northern people like them, also, in poverty and degradation.

Judge, then, of my amazement and joy, when I found—as I did find—the very laboring population of New Bedford living in better houses, more elegantly furnished—surrounded by more comfort and refinement—than a majority of the slaveholders on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. There was my friend, Mr. Johnson, himself a colored man, (who at the south would have been regarded as a proper marketable commodity), who lived in a better house—dined at a richer board—was the owner of more books—the reader of more newspapers—was more conversant with the political and social condition of this nation and the world—than nine-tenths of all the slaveholders of Talbot county, Maryland. Yet Mr. Johnson was a working man, and his hands were hardened by honest toil.

Here, then, was something for observation and study. Whence the difference? The explanation was soon furnished, in the superiority of mind over simple brute force. Many pages might be given to the contrast, and in explanation of its causes. But an incident or two will suffice to show the reader as to how the mystery gradually vanished before me.

My first afternoon, on reaching New Bedford, was spent in visiting the wharves and viewing the shipping. The sight of the broad brim and the plain, Quaker dress, which met me at every turn, greatly increased my sense of freedom and security. “I am among the Quakers,” thought I, “and am safe.” Lying at the wharves and riding in the stream, were full-rigged ships of finest model, ready to start on whaling voyages. Upon the right and the left, I was walled in by large granite-fronted warehouses, crowded with the good things of this world. On the wharves, I saw industry without bustle, labor without noise, and heavy toil without the whip. There was no loud singing, as in southern ports, where ships are loading or unloading—no loud cursing or swearing—but everything went on as smoothly as the works of a well adjusted machine.

How different was all this from the noisily fierce and clumsily absurd manner of labor-life in Baltimore and St. Michael’s [Maryland]! One of the first incidents which illustrated the superior mental character of northern labor over that of the south, was the manner of unloading a ship’s cargo of oil. In a southern port, twenty or thirty hands would have been employed to do what five or six did here, with the aid of a single ox attached to the end of a fall. Main strength, unassisted by skill, is slavery’s method of labor. An old ox, worth eighty dollars, was doing, in New Bedford, what would have required fifteen thousand dollars’ worth of human bones and muscles to have performed in a southern port.

I found that everything was done here with a scrupulous regard to economy, both in regard to men and things, time and strength. The maid servant, instead of spending at least a tenth part of her time in bringing and carrying water, as in Baltimore, had the pump at her elbow. The wood was dry, and snugly piled away for winter. Woodhouses, in-door pumps, sinks, drains, self-shutting gates, washing machines, pounding barrels, were all new things, and told me that I was among a thoughtful and sensible people. To the ship-repairing dock I went, and saw the same wise prudence. The carpenters struck where they aimed, and the calkers wasted no blows in idle flourishes of the mallet. I learned that men went from New Bedford to Baltimore, and bought old ships, and brought them here to repair, and made them better and more valuable than they ever were before. Men talked here of going whaling on a four years’ voyage with more coolness than sailors where I came from talked of going a four months’ voyage.

I now find that I could have landed in no part of the United States, where I should have found a more striking and gratifying contrast to the condition of the free people of color in Baltimore, than I found here in New Bedford. No colored man is really free in a slaveholding state. He wears the badge of bondage while nominally free, and is often subjected to hardships to which the slave is a stranger; but here in New Bedford, it was my good fortune to see a pretty near approach to freedom on the part of the colored people. I was taken all aback when Mr. Johnson—who lost no time in making me acquainted with the fact—told me that there was nothing in the constitution of Massachusetts to prevent a colored man from holding any office in the state. There, in New Bedford, the black man’s children—although anti-slavery was then far from popular—went to school side by side with the white children, and apparently without objection from any quarter.

To make me at home, Mr. Johnson assured me that no slaveholder could take a slave from New Bedford; that there were men there who would lay down their lives, before such an outrage could be perpetrated. The colored people themselves were of the best metal, and would fight for liberty to the death.

This text was taken from Chapter 22 of Frederick Douglass’ autobiography My Bondage and My Freedom, available at the website Lit2Go.
Slavery Enriched White Slave Owners But Robbed America, Not Just African Americans

This horrid institution deprived the ‘land of the free’ of Black talent  (LABOUR)


Jul 4,2022
The UnPopulist | Shikha Dalmia | Substack

The Slave Trade by Auguste François Biard, 1840 (Wikimedia Commons)

By Deirdre Nansen McCloskey

It is scandalous that Thomas Jefferson, the man who penned the immortal declaration of July 4, 1776, that “all men are created equal”(and women, dear!) did not liberate his slaves even at his death, or free even his own slave children by Sally Hemings—who, by the way, was his deceased wife’s half sister. It’s a miserable historical muddle.

But it is every bit as muddled to believe that American prosperity depended on slavery, as some authors of the 1619 project do when they equate the Southern plantation with capitalism. They are not alone. Slavery and wealth are linked in American lore: In his second inaugural address, on March 4, 1865, another great if flawed president, Abraham Lincoln, declared, “If God wills that [the Civil War] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, ... as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

It is a creditable sentiment, nobly expressed by our poet president. Would that he had lived and fulfilled the promise to the freedmen of 40 acres and a mule. Yet Lincoln’s lyricism can mislead. The “piled” plunder of the crime of slavery is dwarfed by the returns of the honest commerce that might have been; Jefferson’s declaration is an economic opportunity sadly missed. Free and equal Black Americans would have generated far more wealth in America than enslaved ones did. Economic history is unequivocal: Jefferson’s slavery wasn’t the basis of America’s prosperity; Jefferson’s liberalism, so beautifully expressed in the document we celebrate today, was.

The Great Enslavement Is Not the Great Enrichment

Let’s take time to settle accounts. Yes, slavery made some Southerners like Jefferson somewhat richer, and some Northerners, too. It enriched slave traders, as well as a number of African kings seizing other Africans and selling them to Europeans waiting on Africa’s West Coast. This is all unmistakably horrible.

But economic history shows decisively and uncontroversially that Americans, whether Black or white, are 20 or 30 times richer than their ancestors were in 1776 or 1865. The Great Enrichment of the past two centuries or so has made us a startling 2,000 or 3,000% better off, and this same enrichment is now spreading to places like China and India.

This has been an utterly unprecedented improvement in merely two centuries over the appalling base at which we Homo sapiens dragged along century after century after our emergence in Southern Africa 3,000 centuries ago. To explain a 2,000 or 3,000% improvement in two centuries, you need to find a source of enrichment a lot more powerful than old-fashioned exploitation. What could be acquired by the disgraceful theft from Americans with African ancestors might account for, say, a 20 or 30 percent gain to the few favored whites. But it can’t possibly account for the 2,000 or 3,000% gain to everyone. After all, on the other, East Coast of Africa, a slave trade into the Middle East went on for longer than on the West Coast, and it was large and horrible in human cost as well. And yet the Middle East is not where the world’s Great Enrichment began. Neither did it begin in Brazil, with its many slaves, nor in the slave economies of Africa itself—nor those of ancient Rome, ancient Greece or any other slaveries.

But it’s hard to dispel the images embedded in Lincoln’s words, and it’s easy to be confused by Jefferson’s contradictions. TeachUSHistory.org states “that Northern finance made the Cotton Kingdom possible” because “Northern factories required that cotton.” The king-cotton notion underlies such recent books as Walter Johnson’s River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom, Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton: A Global History and Edward Baptist’s The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism.

But the warm indignation of these books, while understandable, isn’t a good substitute for established facts and economic logic. The Enrichment of the modern world did not depend on cotton textiles. Cotton mills, true, pioneered a few industrial techniques, but these techniques were invented also in wool and linen, breaking the supposed link between industrial advances and cotton itself. And numerous other techniques in mining, farming, engineering and iron-making—not to speak of biological and organizational innovations—had nothing to do with cotton. The U.K. in 1830 or the U.S. in 1860 were not giant cotton mills.

New Spirits in the Material World

No, the cause of the Great Enrichment was not materialistic—neither a Marxian tale of sinful exploitation nor a conservative tale of blessed thrift. It was not science, which also did not have material causes, though science was encouraged by the Enrichment. Nor was it even a big dose of engineering ingenuity—which, by the way, had nothing to do with high science, but which did spring from the same source as the Great Enrichment.

No, the 2,000 or 3,000% or more in the U.S. or Japan or Finland was in fact the result of a sharp change in belief systems after 1776. This new system started to treat other humans with a new dignity, unheard of in the long history of agriculture, cotton or not.

It was called liberalism.

In Britain, following the Dutch, the highly aristocratic and illiberal society of Shakespeare became the amiable, liberal and bourgeois society of Jane Austen—the “polite and commercial people” of whom the English lawyer William Blackstone wrote. Dr. Samuel Johnson spoke admiringly in 1783 of the new permission to have a go: “The age is running mad after innovation, and all the business of the world is to be done in a new way; men are to be hanged in a new way”; he himself took an interest in new ways of brewing.

This was a real shift. Decades earlier, Johnson had delivered an encomium on hopeful projectors—an emerging but scorned breed of entrepreneurs:

That the attempts of such men [projectors] will often miscarry, we may reasonably expect; yet from such men, and such only, are we to hope for the cultivation of those parts of nature which lie yet waste, and the invention of those arts which are yet wanting to the felicity of life. ... Whatever is attempted without previous certainty of success, ... amongst narrow minds may ... expose its author to censure and contempt; ... every man will laugh at what he does not understand, ... and every great or new design will be censured as a project.

This was a declaration against unequal hierarchy and in favor of bourgeois dignity and the equal liberty of ordinary people to have a go. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1755 to the same effect with uncharacteristic bitterness: The attempts of the improver—such as himself, he might have said—”to benefit mankind, ... however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse.”

But then it changed, and this was the spring in the watch, the secret sauce. Liberalism, and equality not of outcome or opportunity but of permission to innovate and take risks, made the Great Enrichment that I have written about extensively.

The Impoverishing Effects of Slavery, the Great Anti-Liberalism

Yet sadly, slavery, the utter antithesis of permission, persisted—a particularly ugly iteration of the wider enslavements of human history, whether Russian serfs to boyars, English wives to husbands, Roman children to the pater familias, or other depressing examples in the long, long history of subordination of one human to another. True, in the beginning, humanity’s little bands of hunter-gatherers were egalitarian, and they evolved as equals for hundreds of thousands of years. But after the last ice age, agriculture was invented in nine different parts of the world, from Iraq to Guatemala, and the agricultural society of a landlord on horseback and a peasant at the plow was decidedly not equal in permissions to have a go.

And then in the 18th century in Northwestern Europe and parts of Northern America, before steam and steel and democracy and divided highways and containerization, an equality of permission was reinvented, at first in theory, in the noble declarations like Jefferson’s. As the decades passed, the declarations had more and more meaning. When a Russian tourist in the 1880s had made it to the Powder River Valley of Montana, apparently without having had a lot of experience elsewhere in the U.S., he came up to a cowboy and inquired, “Who is your master?” The cowboy replied, “He ain’t been born yet.”

Liberty had arrived, of course, against resistance. The English radical Richard Rumbold, facing his hanging in 1685 for participating in the Argyll’s Rebellion, declared, “I am sure there was no man born marked of God above another; for none comes into the world with a saddle on his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him.” Few in the crowd gathered in Edinburgh for the entertainment would have agreed. And at his own execution in 1649, when King Charles I declared in his speech from the chopping block—nobles got chopped; commoners, hanged—that “a subject and a sovereign are clean different things,” most agreed with such hierarchy.

But a century later, the more advanced thinkers of Scotland and Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would have agreed with Rumbold, even if many still owned slaves and beat their wives (white men were still little kings). By 1985, virtually everyone claimed to agree with Rumbold against Charles, even if they didn’t always believe fully in the new liberal equality of permission or act on it.

Imagine, then, how much greater the Great Enrichment might have been, how much earlier it might have occurred, and how much more generally it would have spread worldwide if liberalism had taken root sooner and more firmly. Suppose that Jefferson had followed his rhetoric and freed his slaves, as Washington did upon his death, and as another Virginia planter, a young friend of Jefferson’s, did when he moved to Illinois with his slaves, freeing them and giving them that storied 40 acres and a mule. Suppose—unhappily it is an impossible counterfactual—that racism had disappeared in 1776, that lynchings stopped, that the Tulsa race riot never took place, that Blacks had been considered, even by Lincoln, who at one point favored sending them back to Africa, the dignified equals of white Americans in an economy and government of the people, by the people, for the people.

What ‘Yet Must Be’

In 1935, when none of this better America had happened, the African American poet Langston Hughes sang: “O, let America be America again— / The land that never has been yet— / And yet must be—the land where every man is free.” Free to move, to invent, to persuade, to offer a dollar, with no master in charge. A noble sentiment, too. And it would have been fantastically enriching.

Where it existed, liberty, not enslavement, made us rich. More liberty causes more riches, and it embodies a nobility of spirit worthy of a free people.

It is July 4. Let us pray that that noble spirit continues to spread among—and to include in its compass—all Americans.

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has written on the theme of the Great Enrichment in her three-volume work, The Bourgeois Virtues (2006), Bourgeois Dignity (2010) and Bourgeois Equality (2016), as well as Why Liberalism Works (2018), The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State (2020, with Alberto Mingardi), Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich (2020, with Art Carden), Bettering Humanomics (2021) and Beyond Positivism (2022).



Deirdre McCloskey - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_McCloskey

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (born Donald N. McCloskey; September 11, 1942 in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics there, and
...See more


How the Libertarian Party Became the Reactionary Arm of Trump and Trumpism


The takeover of the party by the Mises Caucus means election subversion has another friend in 2024


Writes Andy Craig · 
Jul 8,2022





Even among ideological libertarians, the Libertarian Party has long been viewed with a mix of disdain and embarrassment. To the degree anybody else is aware of the LP, it’s from the 2016 presidential campaign of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, whose poll numbers briefly broke into the low double digits before collapsing to a desultory 3.3%. Other than that, the party has languished for five decades, usually getting 1% or less of the vote for president every four years and electing only a tiny smattering of local officials around the country.

But the LP’s lack of electoral relevance does not mean that its recent takeover by a reactionary and populist faction is a politically inconsequential event. The party’s core active membership is in the low five figures, somewhere between the Proud Boys and the Democratic Socialists of America. It has a decent organizational infrastructure with a chapter in every state and in many local precincts too. And it has a history of mobilizing resources in a targeted fashion to pass ballot initiatives and organize protests.

If it decides, for example, to aid election subversion efforts in 2024, it could turn out people in support of Jan. 6-style rallies or worse around the country. This is not a far-fetched possibility given that the new national leadership either minimizes or sympathizes with Jan. 6 rioters, and several state party chapters have made statements in support of the riot.

I was an active member of the party for nearly 10 years, until I resigned last year along with many others unwilling to stick around for a takeover by the illiberal far right. During that time, I was a party officer at the state and local level, served on national committees, including the ones responsible for writing the party’s platform and bylaws, was twice a candidate for office myself, and also worked as a senior staffer on the Johnson campaign in 2016.

From Innocuous Pranksterism to Toxic Bigotry

Aside from Johnson’s candidacy, the party had mostly drawn attention for antics ranging from the mildly amusing to utterly cringe-inducing, such as running an Elvis Presley impersonator as a perennial candidate, nominating someone who accidentally turned his skin blue by drinking colloidal silver, entertaining the presidential aspirations of the mentally unstable alleged murderer John McAfee, and treating C-SPAN viewers to a man stripping nearly naked on the national convention stage. But now, as Ken White, a criminal defense lawyer and respected commentator known by his online moniker Popehat, aptly observed on Twitter, “bigoted shitposters” have now wrested control from these “mostly harmless cranks.”

Under the direction of the so-called Mises Caucus, the LP has become home to those who don’t have qualms about declaring Holocaust-denying racists “fellow travelers” and who don’t think that bigots are necessarily disqualified from the party. They even went out of their way to delete from the party’s platform its nearly 50-year-old language stating: “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” The caucus is also reversing the party’s longstanding commitment to open immigration policies in favor of border enforcement. The new chair, Angela McArdle, proclaims that the party will now be dedicated to fighting “wokeism.” People with pronouns in their Twitter bios aren’t welcome anymore, but, evidently, white nationalists and Holocaust deniers are.

But that’s not all. Various members of the new leadership have averred that: Black folks owe America for affirmative action; Pride Month is a plot by degenerates and child molesters aiming for socialism; and a country with zero taxes but more trans murders would be more morally acceptable than the reverse. Though some Mises Caucus figures insist they want to offer solutions to the culture wars, in practice, that means obsessively weighing in on the side of the far right.

After the Mises Caucus took over the New Hampshire state party, it endorsed the Big Lie, Jan. 6 rioters and Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election. But in an in-depth report, the Southern Poverty Law Center traced the links between the various LP officeholders and Trump’s aiders and abettors. For example, it reported that Michael Heise, the Mises Caucus chairman who is the leading strategist behind the group's takeover of the national Libertarian Party, has actively courted Patrick Byrne, former Overstock.com CEO, receiving advice and donations from Byrne. Byrne spoke at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally and financed Arizona Maricopa County’s audit. Byrne also wrote a book claiming that election fraud cost Trump the election.

Heise nominated as the LP’s Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Daryl Brooks, the man whom Rudy Giuliani called as his first witness alleging election fraud at the infamous press conference outside Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philadelphia. (Brooks was later found to not meet the residency requirement for the office.)

The Paleolibertarian Takeover

How did this happen? Why would a party that found its greatest success in offering a sensible classical liberal alternative to Trump’s GOP end up being taken over by Trumpists and worse?

There are two reasons:

The first is the party’s unique structure, an oversimplified emulation of how the Republicans and Democrats operated over 200 years ago, which made it highly susceptible to hostile takeovers, as I explained here. For example, the party’s national delegates are selected at state conventions that are attended by a small number of highly motivated members willing to spend money out of pocket to show up for a weekend at a local Marriott. They generally don’t represent the views of the vast majority of members or libertarian donors, let alone libertarian voters. But just because they show up, their votes on key LP matters carry the day. This means that it was not at all hard for a group like the Mises Caucus to gin up resources to flood state conventions with its members and select national delegates who could then vote in LP officeholders sympathetic to its views.

Yet, it would be a mistake to suggest that the party could have done nothing to defend itself.

The Mises Caucus was incensed by the Johnson/Weld candidacy because it regarded the duo, particularly Bill Weld, as too mainstream. So it embarked on a campaign to capture state chapters. Yet, at the time, few party leaders were willing to openly, honestly and forcefully condemn what was happening (with some notable exceptions). Criticism that was offered tended to be subtle, restrained, and often combined with a myopic both-sides-ism that tried to frame itself as above the fray of “infighting.” Many state and national party officers went so far as to insist everyone should just get along. They walked on eggshells, afraid that the notoriously abusive Mises Caucus Twitter mob would come after them (even as the same caucus railed endlessly against leftist cancel culture mobs).

The motives and pattern of behavior—fear, cowardice, cynical political calculation and appeasement to chase votes in internal party elections—that caused the LP to succumb to a reactionary faction replicated in miniature the Trumpist takeover of the GOP. LP incumbents who tried to present themselves as fair and neutral and those who were openly against the Mises Caucus were all swept aside—just like anti-Trump Republicans such as Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois in the GOP. The former has been censured and primaried by the GOP, and the latter has been censured and pushed into early retirement. The current favorite for the next LP presidential candidate is stand-up comic Dave Smith, who, despite his Jewish background, is notorious for praising and defending anti-Semites and white nationalists like Nick Fuentes.

But besides the party’s structure, the second reason behind the pusillanimity of the LP in taking on the Mises Caucus is the broader “paleolibertarian” ideology that has haunted the libertarian movement for decades. This worldview has long advocated a strategic alliance with the populist right to fight their mutual enemy: The Establishment. The person who made the most ardent case for such an alliance was anarcho-capitalist polemicist Murray Rothbard, originally a more liberal thinker who took a dark turn in his later years and started inveighing against immigration, anti-discrimination laws and the welfare state. In a sense, Rothbard was the original Flight 93 strategist who believed that there was no more urgent task than to tear down The Establishment by any means necessary, even allying with far-right racists and bigots. He was a precursor of the modern right’s obsession with the leftist enemy.

Ron Paul: The Paleo Conduit

Former Republican congressman Ron Paul has been paleolibertarianism’s most visible promoter. His 2008 and 2012 bids for the Republican presidential nomination initially ignited considerable grassroots enthusiasm, even among non-libertarians, thanks to his staunch opposition to war, among other things. But eventually Paul’s candidacy went down in flames in no small part due to the emergence of racist newsletters penned under his name some 20 years prior by a Rothbard acolyte. The author, Lew Rockwell, founded the Mises Institute, from which the Mises Caucus gets its name. (It can’t be emphasized enough that Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist after whom the institute is named, was a liberal champion of toleration and cosmopolitanism who would have roundly condemned his namesake’s twisted agenda.)

The newsletters peddled vile steretoypes about African Americans, gay people and other minorities with the aim of courting white, grassroots support. Though the paleo strain has never been dominant in the libertarian movement, it always had its boosters. However, the core party members at the time failed to forcefully challenge and ostracize the paleo faction in the name of avoiding “infighting.” This was a missed opportunity. It meant the classical liberal old guard did not have a fully worked out moral argument when the paleos, incensed by the Johnson/Weld candidacy, decided that the party was headed in the wrong direction—that the bigger threat to libertarian principles was wokeism and the cultural left, not the populist and illiberal right. And thus the paleos took control of the steering wheel to course correct.

The GOP’s failure to stand up to Trump led to the exit of sensible, upright Republicans such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan, leaving the Trumpists firmly in control. The same thing happened with the LP’s mushy middle-ground approach toward the paleos. The previous national chair, Joe Bishop-Henchman, resigned in protest last year after the Libertarian National Committee refused to disaffiliate the New Hampshire party for tweeting racist statements.

He invoked the story of a bar owner to explain what the LP should have done when there was still time: One day a man wearing far-right paraphernalia walked into the bar and calmly sat down for a drink. But the bar owner threw him out because, he said, if he had looked the other way and served the man, who was doing nothing disruptive, he would have soon brought in his toxic friends and they would then draw in some more and, before you knew it, the bar would have become a neo-Nazi haunt that nobody else would want to patronize. This is exactly what has happened to the LP.

The Moral Collapse of the Libertarian Old Guard

More than a fifth of the national party’s dues-paying members have left in the past year. That proportion is probably even greater among those who were active members, participating in campaigns and party business. In short, a party that proclaimed freedom of association as one of its core principles, in the end was destroyed because it was unwilling to exercise that fundamental right.

To believe that there was a kumbaya compromise possible with those whose vision is fundamentally incompatible with liberal values speaks to a profound moral confusion. You can have an organization that welcomes bigots or one that welcomes the targets of their hate, but you can’t have both under the same tent.

The same pathology that afflicts the GOP now also afflicts the LP, namely, orienting itself not by reference to its principles but by single-mindedly focusing on its enemy: progressives and anybody else to the left of the far right. This alignment bodes ill for the future of American politics, now that the nation’s largest third party is an adjunct of Trumpism rather than an opponent of it.

The US And Changing Geopolitics Of The Red Sea – Analysis


A view of the Nile and Red Sea, with a dust storm. Photo Credit: NATO

By 

By Vivel Mishra and Sankalp Gurjar

Two recent developments underscore the resurgent geopolitics of the Red Sea which is caught between great power politics and regional rivalries.  The United States (US) decision to establish a new multinational task force to focus on preventing the smuggling of arms and narcotics in and around the waters of Yemen; and the Iranian decision to bolster its presence in the Red Sea region point to opposite trends that may intensify the geopolitics of the Red Sea.

The establishment of the Combined Task Force (CTF) 153 by the US  to “focus on international maritime security and capacity-building efforts in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb, and the Gulf of Aden” seeks to balance regional recalibrations with the US’ own interests in the region. The CTF-153 will be part of the Combined Maritime Forces which is headquartered in Manama, Bahrain. It will complement the efforts of the three task forces (CTF 150, 151, and 152) that are already operating under the rubric of the CMF. The establishment of the CTF-153 and the overall expansion of the geographic expanse of the CMF will be useful to ensure maritime security and counter security threats, mostly non-traditional, in the strategically important waters of the Western Indian Ocean. The establishment of the quadrilateral group of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the US, known as I2U2, opens up opportunities for these states to work together in the Red Sea region. Importantly, the Indian Navy carried out exercises in the Red Sea last year as well as this year.

In the second important development, Israel’s Defence Minister Benny Gantz has voiced concerns about the Iranian military presence in the Red Sea region. He said that “in the last months, we have identified the most significant Iranian military presence in the area in the past decade”. Post-2015, as the war in Yemen intensified, the growing Iranian military presence, partly to support the Houthi rebels, in the Red Sea region has become a matter of concern for the Arab states and Israel. The Iranian nuclear programme and aggressive regional policies across the Middle East have sharpened strategic rivalries with regional states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Iranian military presence in the Red Sea region serves the purpose of outflanking these Arab States. As such, it raises security concerns for Israel and ensures forward military presence in a key global waterway.

Expanding global military footprint in the Red Sea  

In the last few years, global and regional players have established their military basesin the littoral states of the Red Sea. The Red Sea has seven littoral states: Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti form the western flank whereas Saudi Arabia and Yemen make up the Eastern shoreline. Israel’s port of Eilat is located in the northeastern corner of the strategic waterway. Of these, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are regional heavyweights in their own right whereas the other four states are weak, poor, volatile, and vulnerable. In such a region, it is no surprise to find the steadily growing involvement of the regional and global military players.

Russia has announced plans to establish a naval base in Sudan whereas China holds a military base in Djibouti. The imperative to expand influence and establish a military presence in one of the key water bodies drives their efforts. For China, the evacuation from Libya in 2011 and from Yemen in 2015 underscored the necessity of maintaining a forward operating base. The US base in Djibouti, close strategic relationship with Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and multinational efforts like the CMF solidify its role in the regional geopolitics. The presence of the US, China, and Russia in the Red Sea points towards the evolving reality of intensifying great power politics.

In the context of the war in Yemen, since 2015, the UAE and Saudi Arabia sought to limit the power of Iran-supported Houthis and also curb Iranian influence in the southern Red Sea region. They expanded their influence as well as military presence by building partnerships with Sudan, Djibouti, and Eritrea. Türkiye wants to rebuild the port of Suakin in Sudan which will complement its presence in Somalia. The Middle Eastern powers are deeply involved in the domestic politics of African states located in the broader Red Sea region. Regional rivalries between the Middle Eastern players add an important dimension to the geopolitics of the Red Sea.

In some ways, the intensified rivalries in the Red Sea region are reminiscent of the colonial past. Intense colonial competition between Britain, Italy, and France for the control of the Red Sea region resulted in the establishment of their colonies along the littorals. Britain controlled Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, and British Somaliland whereas Italy controlled Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. French military presence in the southern Red Sea through its base at Djibouti is a constant feature of regional geopolitics. France is a key driving force behind the involvement of the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the region. The EU has established its presence in the Red Sea through Operation Atlanta and NATO operated via Operation Ocean Shield. The EU also has a training mission for Somalia which is located near the Red Sea.

Despite the growing global military presence in the region, maritime traffic through the Red Sea has moved seamlessly. The greater global and regional interest in the Red Sea has been leveraged by the regional states to draw maximum benefits. Djibouti survives on the rents paid by those who operate foreign military bases. Eritrea and Sudan have sought to end their isolation by engaging with regional players. However, the external involvement in the region has had adverse effects as well. Yemen has been torn apart by the civil war and regional rivalries. The proximity between the bases of the US and China in Djibouti has generated anxiety.

The step by the US to spruce up its strategic presence in the region has a twin objective: To change the perception that the US influence in the region may be waning and to assure friends like Saudi Arabia and the UAE that the US is not working at cross-purposes with them. Besides, the US also seeks their cooperation in increasing the oil output in the wake of the disruptions caused by the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war. The growing Iranian military presence coupled with the delays in reviving the JCPOA and intensifying rivalries between Russia and the West does not augur well for regional security.

The decision of the US to boost its strategic presence in the Red Sea is also consistent with its post-Afghanistan scramble in the region. Iran’s strengthening of its Russia axis, its continued support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen and a faltering JCPOA have all contributed to a renewed push by the US in the region to reposition itself in a way that compliments its interests amidst rapidly changing regional calculus in West Asia, especially post the Abraham Accords.

Since the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, the strategic importance of the Red Sea has gone up considerably. The Suez Canal links the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea and is one of the most important arteries of global trade. Last year, when a giant container ship HMS Ever given was stuck in Suez Canal, it sent shock waves across the world economy. Besides the US, the Red Sea remains an important cog in the wheel of the Belt and Road Initiative by China.  The recent great power scramble in the Red Sea is a reminder of the region’s continued importance for the world, not just for trade.


Observer Research Foundation

ORF was established on 5 September 1990 as a private, not for profit, ’think tank’ to influence public policy formulation. The Foundation brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present An Agenda for Economic Reforms in India. The idea was to help develop a consensus in favour of economic reforms.

Heatwave points to energy blind spot in UK for policy makers

Britain's Met Office is warning that temperatures could hit 40 deg C for the first time. PHOTO: AFP

LONDON (BLOOMBERG) - A blind spot is building up in the UK energy market as temperatures are set to break new records in England.

A UK Met Office warning that temperatures could hit 40 deg C for the first time means that demand for air conditioning and other cooling systems will soar.

Still, there is little evidence on how much that demand for cooling will increase and what impact it will have on energy markets that are already racing to secure supplies for winter.

"The lack of data is certainly an issue for policy makers," said Mr Adam Bell, head of policy at consulting firm Stonehaven.

"There is an assumption that the market will handle that, but there is definitely a risk as the weather gets hotter and hotter and heat waves become more common."

Heat waves are becoming more prevalent over the summer in the UK and other places around the world as the planet warms.

A UK Parliament briefing last year said that in 2018, the size of the global market for refrigeration and air conditioning exceeded that of solar panels, and global electricity demand for cooling alone is forecast to triple by 2050.

Yet there's barely any information about the UK itself.

"From April onward, we start seeing demand increase for AC systems and it will continue to grow as the climate heats up," said Mr Ryan Philp, who works as a business development manager for Daikin UK, an air-conditioning manufacturer.

Heat waves in the UK have typically lasted only a few days of the year.

But while the impact of air conditioning use is currently low compared to other uses, it could rise as climate change poses a growing risk.

Countries around Europe are rushing to secure energy for winter as Russia threatens to curb gas supply to the continent.

This winter, average household bills in the UK are set to be almost three times the level of last year.