Thursday, November 17, 2022

Pay doesn’t reflect minority ethnic Britons’ academic success: Study

The Institute for Fiscal Studies’s report has said while most minority ethnic groups in the UK have done well in education, “clear evidence” of discrimination in their pay and careers has remained.

Representative Image (iStock)

By: Shubham Ghosh

In a finding that would concern many, a study published by London’s Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said while most minority ethnic groups in the UK have made significant progress in terms of educational achievement, “clear evidence” of discrimination in their pay and careers has remained.

The study found that while most of the biggest minority ethnic groups do in English and mathematics examinations as good or better than white British students in England and are more likely than the white teenagers to progress to the university, the educational success doesn’t guarantee a long-term success, a report by The Guardian said.

The educational excellence “has not yet translated into better, or even equal, success when it comes to earnings”, the IFS report said, with fewer minority ethnic students admitted into the top universities or getting degree results as good as their white counterparts.

According to Professor Heidi Safia Mirza of the University College London Institute of Education, a co-author of the study, “The picture is neither universally positive nor universally gloomy. Most ethnic minority groups in the UK are doing better than they were, and are doing particularly well in education.

“On the other hand, most continue to earn less than their white British counterparts, and all earn less on average than we would expect given their education, background and occupation. Evidence of discrimination in the labour market is clear, and wealth inequalities are likely to prove especially hard to shift.

Mirza said policymakers must understand and acknowledge these issues if the country were to make progress in “tackling remaining inequalities”.

The study also highlighted the “remarkable” change in educational performance by some of the groups in England.

About a decade-and-half, Bangladeshi pupils were 10 percentage points less likely than their white British counterparts to get good GCSE results in mathematics and English but now they are five percentage points more likely to receive good grades.

But while Bangladeshi students are 27 percentage points more likely to go to higher education than their white counterparts, yet they remain less likely to be admitted to universities that seek A-level grades, despite the fact that the gap has narrowed in recent times.

The study said that some of the minority ethnic groups do much better in terms of improved income as graduates than others, including the white British due to the low earnings by non-graduates within the same ethnic group.

Pakistani women and men, for example, witness the highest financial returns from going to university, despite their average earnings being lesser than any other graduate group.

The report unveiled on Monday (14) is part of the IFS’s Deaton review of inequalities in the 21st century.

It comes as the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has cautioned that the number of adults taking education courses has gone down, especially among those having poor backgrounds or living in the most deprived areas.

The TUC added that since 2016, the number of adults taking courses from the most deprived parts of the country has plummeted from 705,000 to 447,000. Funding for adult education has been reduced by 40 per cent since 2010.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said, “The government must reverse its self-defeating cuts and work with unions and other providers to upskill the nation. Rishi Sunak must put his money where his mouth is and invest properly in training and skills.”

U$A

The Group That’s Changing the Abortion Rights Playbook — and Winning Big

Families United for Freedom is pulling abortion rights out of the traditional left-versus-right frame. On Election Day, that theory won big.


Families United for Freedom spent over $1.7 million in four of the six states with abortion ballot measures this cycle — Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Montana. | Brandon Bell/Getty Images

By BEN JACOBS
11/15/2022 
Ben Jacobs is a writer based in Washington, D.C.
POLITICO

In five states on Election Day, voters weighed in directly on various ballot measures involving abortion. The states had vastly different politics, ranging from liberal California to religious, conservative Kentucky. The language on the ballot differed dramatically state by state. Some measures would have inserted a broad-ranging affirmative right to abortion into a state constitution; another would have required medical care for infants “born alive,” such as in cases of failed abortion. But all the measures had one thing in common: The abortion-rights position won in each case.

For Families United for Freedom, a new political action committee founded in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in June, the wins served as proof that the best way to try to restore the reproductive rights once guaranteed by Roe v. Wade was at the ballot box.


Families United for Freedom spent over $1.7 million in four of the six states with abortion ballot measures this cycle — Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Montana. (There were also ballot measures in the safe Democratic states of California and Vermont.) The group partnered with local grassroots organizations to protect abortion rights, providing them with polling and strategic advice. The group was driven by a simple thesis: When given the option, voters in red and purple states will support abortion rights at the polls — if the issue is divorced from partisan politics. On Election Day, that thesis proved to be mostly correct.

The initial test of whether ballot measures in defense of abortion rights could be more popular when put to the voters directly came in Kansas, a red state, in August, soon after Dobbs. Voters there weighed in on a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the state legislature to restrict abortion in the state. The amendment, which had been put on the ballot before the Supreme Court’s decision and timed to coincide with the primary elections in a deep-red state that no Democratic presidential candidate had carried since Lyndon Johnson, failed overwhelmingly.

In that campaign, FUF contributed $600,000 to the local group Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, which coordinated abortion-rights efforts in the campaign.

That initial win molded Families United for Freedom’s thinking and approach, Rachael Bedard, the group’s executive director, told POLITICO. “I think Kansas is this really important case study in a red state with lots of folks who self-identify as Republicans and independents showing up to vote,” she said. Those voters supported abortion rights far more than anticipated, Bedard said, because the modeling had not been adjusted to reflect how political attitudes on abortion rights had changed in the aftermath of Dobbs.

Abortion-rights supporters chant at the Kentucky Capitol on April 13, 2022, in Frankfort, Ky.
| Bruce Schreiner/AP Photo

Ashley All, a longtime Democratic political operative in Kansas who helped lead Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, the local group that partnered with FUF, has since become a senior adviser to the PAC. Kansas voters, All said, value personal liberty and the freedom to make health-related decisions for themselves. “That is something that is not a partisan value,” she said. “It’s a core American value. And that was something we found that resonated across the political spectrum.”

It was that message — “protecting constitutional rights and your freedom to make decisions about your own body,” as All characterized it — that the group found resonated with voters more than any other one. It was the one that appealed the most not just to swing voters but to the most progressive ones as well. “Voters can have diverse personal views on abortion and still share the fundamental belief that women should have the constitutional right to make their own decisions,” All said. “That is the definition of ‘pro-choice,’ whether voters label themselves that way or not.”

The campaign in Kansas appealed to the various political views that could inform an abortion-rights perspective by sounding libertarian and conservative tones in ads. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom ran an ad describing the amendment as “an overreaching government mandate.” It featured a photo of a business establishment with a sign mandating masks on doors while the words “ANOTHER GOVERNMENT MANDATE” flashed across the screen.

In Kansas, it wasn’t just messaging. Part of the ballot measure’s success was due to the fact that voters in Kansas just aren’t that anti-abortion. “Republican primary voters have a well-earned reputation for being very pro-life,” said one Republican operative who worked on the issue and was granted anonymity to speak frankly.

“But that’s almost a signifier, and not where most folks stand on the issue.”

Instead, the operative said, voters tended to have relatively nuanced positions on the issue. A typical Republican voter might think “I trust my representative not to take it too far to a complete ban, but I don’t trust those guys out [in the western part of the state],” the operative said. And these Kansans had reason to fear the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to abortion bans, given the near-total bans in the neighboring states of Oklahoma and Missouri.

Dealing with the issue of abortion via direct democracy flipped the debate, he said. The operative noted that college-educated voters and women often need to justify to themselves their reasons for voting for the party of Donald Trump. “The economy is the permission structure to vote Republican for those college-educated voters,” the operative said. “For women, it’s the economy and public safety.” Voting for abortion rights on a separate measure means that these voters aren’t asked to consider these other issues at all.

Ethan Winter, the research and strategy director at FUF, echoed this. He found that the Republicans most likely to break with the party on abortion ballot questions were “younger Republicans, women and those with college degrees.”

One key question on Tuesday was whether abortion as an issue on the ballot was a benefit for Democrats. There are some indications it was energizing among likely Democratic voters: In Michigan, registrations among women and young people after the Dobbs decision surged, for instance. In that state, the abortion ballot measure did seem to deliver benefits to Democrats; its results ran only slightly ahead of those of statewide Democrats. With over 95 percent of the vote reported, the constitutional amendment received 57 percent of the vote, while incumbent Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer was at 55 percent.

But this apparent boost to Democrats wasn’t a sure thing in other states with abortion rights ballot measures.

In Kentucky and Montana, for instance, the abortion-rights side ran far ahead of Democrats. GOP Senator Rand Paul won nearly 62 percent of the vote in the Kentucky, while anti-abortion groups were only able to muster 47 percent for their side of the ballot initiative.

But some advocates for the ballot-measure strategy are concerned about a potential conflict if it were used as a partisan tool. One mantra that kept on being repeated by FUF staffers was “You can’t optimize on two variables.” In other words, you can pursue what the best course is for expanding abortion rights or the best course for helping Democrats. You can’t do both.

For Bedard, any down-ballot benefits for Democrats were “a potentially desirable second effect” but it wasn’t the goal. “We got into this not because we’re playing four-dimensional chess but to win back abortion rights for women in places where they can be lost.”

Winter warned those who might be wondering if putting language about abortion on the ballot could help Democrats in the future. “That is wrong. Do not do that,” he said in a tone that sounded more like a parent warning a toddler to stay from a hot stove than a pundit offering analysis. “These campaigns are effective because they work incredibly hard to depolarize abortion and pull it out of the typical Democratic versus Republican frame.”

However, Bedard made clear that they were trying to balance abortion-rights priorities with party priorities. “I do not foresee a situation where we put a question on the ballot where we can win and it hurts Democrats,” she said. “However, what that means is really doing our homework.” Putting the wrong question on the ballot in the wrong state, she continued, could hurt Democrats.

The challenge now, for FUF, is to determine just what protections for abortion rights Republicans are willing to support. “I would say about that is there is a distinction between trying to figure out the most acceptable floor position and the most acceptable ceiling position, and we are really interested in this acceptable ceiling position,” Bedard said.

“We’re not trying to come into states and advance positions that do not guarantee sort of the most expansive reproductive rights that we can,” she continued. After all, the expansive abortion rights protections that Vermont voters adopted on Tuesday might not succeed in a state like Kansas, where voters simply supported keeping the pre-Dobbs status quo.

From the view of FUF, the debate on what voters actually want is still unsettled, and they are willing to advocate for whatever data science says that American voters want. “I really want to see research before we make that kind of guess about where the American public stands now,” said Bedard.

For 2023 and 2024, the group is looking at where it could put new measures on the ballot. “We know what we win next cycle doesn’t have to be the end,” Bedard said.
Opinion | Fetterman, Trump, and a New Model of Blue-Collar Masculinity

Democrats don’t have to cede the politics of masculinity to the GOP.


U.S. Senate-elect John Fetterman speaks during a campaign event in Newtown, Pa., Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022.
| Matt Rourke/AP Photo

LONG READ



Opinion by JOAN C. WILLIAMS
11/15/2022

Joan C. Williams is director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and author of White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America. She is also the founder of Bridging the Diploma Divide in American Politics.


Progressives often assume that trying to attract more white working-class voters to the Democratic Party is a fool’s errand, and that doing so will compromise their values or lose votes among people of color. John Fetterman’s successful senatorial campaign in Pennsylvania shows these assumptions are false. Fetterman’s strategy attracted 91 percent of Black voters in the state, according to exit polls, and peeled off enough rural working-class white voters from the GOP to win, exceeding Joe Biden’s 2020 totals across the state. How did he do it? Remembering James Carville’s old comment that Pennsylvania is essentially Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between, the answer has sweeping implications for Democrats across the country.

Fetterman did what has long been considered impossible: He married progressive policy positions with cultural signaling that appealed to blue-collar voters of all races. This helped bridge the “diploma divide” at the heart of the political realignment shaping American politics, with college grads flocking to Democrats and non-college grads increasingly embracing the GOP. The divide is largest among white people but also affects people of color: Support for Democrats among non-college educated voters of color fell 19 percentage points between 2012 and 2020.

Fetterman’s progressivism includes support for raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all, an overhaul of the criminal justice system, gun restrictions, same-sex marriage, protections for transgender people and a rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws. Policy-wise, he would fit right in where I live, in San Francisco, especially given his thoughts about the “dark side of capitalism.” But it didn’t cost him a victory in Pennsylvania.

That’s because Fetterman’s formula did two things. First, he flipped the elitism script that Republicans have used so effectively to tar Democrats. Second, he signaled an embrace of blue-collar values — particularly of a widely held strain of working-class masculinity.


John Fetterman and his wife Gisele arrive to vote in Braddock, Pa, on Nov. 8, 2022. Fetterman supports progressive policies such raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all and criminal justice reform. | Gene J. Puskar/AP Photo

What’s notable about Fetterman’s masculinity is how it differs from the kind cultivated by Donald Trump and the GOP. Unlike Trump’s fragile, macho belligerence, Fetterman offers a sense of stoic decency and empathy.

Fetterman’s approach isn’t the only path for Democrats hoping to reach white working-class voters. But it’s also true that masculinity is a hugely potent force in American politics. It’s time for Democrats to stop ceding it to the far right and offer their own compelling version.

Flip the Elitism Script


Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and other conservative outlets have long thrived by tapping into blue-collar anger about elite condescension. Sociologist and writer Arlie Hochschild recalls a gospel singer in Southwest Louisiana who declared that she loved Rush Limbaugh: Her “basic feeling [was] that Limbaugh was defending her against insults she felt liberals were lobbing at her: ‘Oh, liberals think that Bible-loving Southerners are ignorant, backward, rednecks, losers. They think we are racist, sexist, homophobic and maybe fat.’” Media scholars Reece Peck and Anthony Nadler have documented how Fox News commentators from Bill O’Reilly to Tucker Carlson have effectively offered a deal: They will stand up for working-class voters against liberal elites who belittle and demean them in return for support for Trump and his allies.

Fettrman deftly flipped the Fox News script, portraying Mehmet Oz as the elite candidate of the campaign. When Oz tried to connect with voters on rising inflation by acting shocked about how much he spent buying “crudités” at “Wegners,” Fetterman tweeted, “In PA, we call that a veggie tray.” It also didn’t help that Wegners doesn’t exist; Oz had mashed together the names of two grocery chains, suggesting a millionaire who doesn’t do his own shopping. Fetterman hit Oz for owning 10 houses and counterattacked when Oz criticized Fetterman for not wearing a suit. “Wearing a suit doesn’t make me any smarter,” he said. “This is who I am.” His standard outfit is cargo shorts and a hoodie.

Earlier in his career, Fetterman defended the honor of Braddock, the Rust Belt town where he was mayor, by favorably comparing it to San Francisco: “In Cambridge or San Francisco, you can’t get a gym membership for what you can get a home for in our community.” Most importantly, while lieutenant governor, Fetterman visited all 67 Pennsylvania counties — and listened. “We’re an overlooked population,” said one voter at a rally in Gettysburg. “We are surrounded by a lot of people who don’t see any value in our viewpoint. He’s listening to us.” Empathy begets empathy, too. After Fetterman’s stroke, when many thought it would doom his candidacy, voters in PA saw in his health scare a reflection of their own struggles.

Fetterman shows respect for regular people without compromising his values. This should not be hard for Democrats to do, but instead, too many on the left insult the intelligence of non-college educated voters by calling them gullible (“Big Lie” believers), obstinate (“climate deniers”) and backward (“I believe in science”). This just drives many voters further into the arms of Fox News and Trump.
Forge a Cultural Connection

Fetterman also connected with blue-collar voters by signaling an embrace of blue-collar values. There are many ways Democrats can do this, but Fetterman himself did it by appealing to blue-collar masculinity. The irony is that Fetterman himself does not come from a blue-collar background, but he was able to connect with blue-collar tropes and traditions.

We’ve heard so much about the role of race in Trump’s appeal but far less about gender. That’s an important oversight. As I have noted on my site, “Bridging the Diploma Divide In American Politics”:

“Endorsement of hegemonic masculinity (aka macho) predicts Trump voting both in men and women, more so than racism and other prejudice. Hegemonic masculinity reflects the ideal that men should be mentally, physically, and emotionally strong, tough and in control: thus Trump brags about the size of his nuclear button, proclaims ‘domination’ over COVID, mocks as weak men who wear masks or change diapers. In case you missed the message, Trump plays the song ‘Macho Man’ at his rallies. ‘Men should be men; women should be women’ sexism (aka hostile sexism) was second only to political orientation in predicting support for Trump, for both men and women.”

Democrats are fooling themselves if they think they can ignore the power of masculinity. As someone who spent decades studying gender bias, I don’t love this reality; I recognize that it reinforces old scripts. But Democrats don’t have to embrace sexism to defeat Trumpism. Instead, they should contest Trump’s version of masculinity with an alternative when they can, and attempt to appeal to male voters in more constructive ways than Trump. That’s what Fetterman does.

On the surface, Fetterman embodies the physical ideals of working-class masculinity and toughness: At 6 foot, 8 inches tall, “He’s a man who could pass as a Hells Angel,” noted a POLITICO reporter in April 2021. People said “he looks like a bad guy from central casting or, at least, an intimidating bouncer … dressing like a serial killer in cargo shorts in subfreezing weather.” He owns a single suit he rarely wears. During his time as mayor, Fetterman drove a pickup truck. He’s received massive publicity about his nine tattoos listing the name of every person who died by violence during his tenure. One Black man whom Fetterman got out of prison (one of many), said, “He looked like an average guy.” An average blue-collar guy.


John Fetterman shows his tattoos as he speaks with supporters during his campaign stop in Philadelphia on April 3, 2016. When Tucker Carlson derided him, calling his tattoos “a costume,” Fetterman told the stories of the murdered people his tattoos memorialize in moving detail, not letting the insult go unanswered. | Bill Clark/AP Photo

Oddly, it was Oz who best articulated some of this unspoken message while trying to frame Fetterman as a radical: “He’s kicking authority in the balls. He’s saying, ‘Hey, I’m the man, I’ll show those guys who’s boss.’” Oz didn’t seem to get that this is part of Fetterman’s appeal.

But Fetterman takes this beyond image. He links style and policy by centering his demand for good blue-collar jobs in areas left behind. A retired factory worker who voted for Fetterman told the New York Times that he hoped Fetterman “would come up with some ideas” to help “poor people working two or three jobs just to get by.” Fetterman highlighted jobs in his Senate victory party speech, saying his campaign was “for every job that has been lost, for every factory that was ever closed and for every person that worked hard but never gets ahead.” This has been a central theme of Fetterman’s political life from the beginning, ever since he moved to Braddock, the site of Andrew Carnegie’s first steel mill, now long-since closed. Without Fetterman’s oft-demonstrated commitment to family-sustaining jobs — the foundation of masculine dignity for blue-collar as well as white-collar men— his quest to woo back non-college grads would have been doomed.


A John Fetterman supporter signs Get Well cards during a primary election night party in Imperial, Pa. on May 17, 2022. When Oz sneered at that if Fetterman had “ever eaten a vegetable in his life” he wouldn’t have “had a stroke,” Fetterman chastised him for “ridiculing someone for their health challenges.” | Gene J. Puskar/AP Photo

Another working-class ideal Fetterman taps is the protector and provider. Sociologist Michèle Lamont’s classic study The Dignity of Working Men documents that both white and Black blue-collar men admire these ideals. Fetterman showcased this approach through his focus on stopping crime in Braddock. “As a mayor, I always felt a sense of obligation and responsibility for tragedies that happened under my watch,” he wrote in an op-ed, stressing that most of those who died were young Black men. “I worked closely with the police and found ways to help them get the funding that they needed to do their jobs effectively. I also made sure we were investing in young people and in programs to keep them off the streets.” Fetterman supports gun control but also lets it be known he has owned a gun. His “protector” role has brought on controversy, though: Fetterman once pulled a shotgun on a Black jogger on the unfounded assumption the jogger was involved in a shooting nearby.

In Braddock, Fetterman also played the don who takes care of his people. “He’s available to take kids to get a drivers’ license — and pay for it,” noted Rolling Stone. He and his wife, Gisele, opened a “free store” that gives away diapers, clothes and other goods. “The archetypical political boss — like the ideal working-class father and husband is a provider and protector,” wrote Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields in their book, Trump’s Democrats.

This is one of the key distinctions between Fetterman’s and Trump’s masculinities. Though Fetterman embraces his “tough-guy” image, he follows a less aggressive, truculent model of masculinity than Trump. Fetterman looks to protect and provide for his community, while Trump cares mostly about dominance, as seen in his insult-based rhetoric and his bragging about sexual assault.

One way that Trump and Fetterman are similar, though, is that both tap into the blue-collar tradition of straight talk. They have the appearance of the independent, courageous man who is unafraid to say what he thinks. One Trump supporter said he liked the former president because, “He doesn’t talk out of both sides of his mouth. … He comes across very, very rough.” For Trump and the far right, this is often intertwined with insults to masculinity. Meanwhile, here’s Fetterman: “Oz is a simp for Big Oil. He swipes right on these greedy corporations making record profits while PA families pay more at the pump. I’ll actually stand up to the oil executives + crack down on their disgusting price gouging.”


John Fetterman supporters at an election night event in Pittsburgh, Pa. on Nov. 8, 2022. What Fetterman’s campaign shows is that if Democrats center a demand for well-paid jobs for non-college grads and adopt a style that connects with blue-collar values, they may not need to “moderate” so much on gay marriage, climate change and other issues. | Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Blue-collar guys don’t let an insult go unanswered, and neither does Fetterman. When Tucker Carlson derided him by calling his tattoos “a costume,” Fetterman came out swinging. He told the stories of the murdered people his tattoos memorialized, concluding: “Gun violence and violent crime might be jokes to someone like Carlson, but they are very real to people in towns like Braddock.”

Fetterman’s much-admired social-media prowess also taps into blue-collar men’s tradition of ribbing each other, described in detail in an excellent book on coal mines by Jessica Smith Rolston. Such repartee follows a long masculine tradition centered on negotiating relative status. Fetterman and his campaigns delighted in this one-upmanship against Oz, notably hiring Jersey Shore’s Snooki to do a video skewering Oz’ New Jersey roots and which got 2.5 million views.

Yet another way that Fetterman taps into blue collar ideals of masculinity is by being something of a loner, known for walking his own path. Sometimes he’s been criticized for his go-it-alone attitude. “He doesn’t play well with others,” one Braddock resident told the New York Times Magazine in 2011. But a sense of independence and not being constrained by politeness and sociability are highly valued attributes for many Americans. Indeed, this is Trump’s style, which many blue-collar folks love.



A sign supporting Fetterman in Braddock, Pa. On Nov. 6, 2022. Fetterman publicly moved to rust-belt Braddock — the site of Andrew Carnegie’s first steel mill and a gutted town common in rural areas and factory towns — showing that the support for good, family-sustaining jobs for noncollege-grads is his utmost priority as a politician.
| Angela Weiss/Getty Images

Unlike Trump, however, Fetterman marries the “real man” with the “good man.” When an Oz aide sneered that if Fetterman had “ever eaten a vegetable in his life” he wouldn’t have had a stroke, Fetterman went high despite Oz’s low: “I had a stroke. I survived it. I’m so truly grateful to still be here today. I know politics can be nasty, but even then, I could *never* imagine ridiculing someone for their health challenges.” Notably, since his stroke, Fetterman also has shown a vulnerability that’s part of progressive traditions of masculinity as he struggled to find words and with auditory processing. This may have worked so well for Fetterman because he had long since established his masculine cred; fascinating studies show that in indisputably masculine jobs like firefighting, men are allowed to show vulnerability without losing face.
What Progressives Need to Remember

Fetterman’s precise mode of campaigning, of course, isn’t available to candidates across the board. Women candidates can be punished for seeming too aggressive or too “masculine,” and long-held biases mean a Black candidate who looks and dresses like Fetterman might struggle to get elected to the Senate. But Fetterman isn’t the only progressive who has had success connecting with blue-collar voters — many have found their own paths. Just consider the steely-edged Gretchen Whitmer, whom the AFL-CIO champions because “she would build a Michigan economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.”



John Fetterman and his wife, Gisele, leave their polling place after casting their votes on November 8, 2022 in Braddock, Pa. Fetterman has managed to marry progressive policy positions with cultural signaling that appealed to blue-collar voters.
| Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Fetterman and Whitmer both found ways to solve a deeply structural problem. Until the 1970s, Democrats were an alliance of blue-collar workers and liberal intellectuals who agreed on economic issues; their priority was to ensure good jobs and stable retirement. Then my generation came of age in the 1970s and shifted the Democrats away from a focus on blue-collar economics and toward countercultural social issues. The GOP eventually learned to weaponize this dynamic into the culture wars. Republicans created their coalition by giving blue-collar “values voters” sway on social issues while country-club Republicans got tax cuts and pro-business policies.

Fetterman’s victory shows that progressive Democrats can sway enough non-college grads to win. If Democrats don’t connect with non-elites and offer them an honored social identity, Fox News and the GOP will. A forthcoming Rural Urban Bridge Initiative finds that Democrats who signal that they share their neighbors’ values perform better than expected in rural America. Increasing cultural competence with blue-collar voters may not feel as comfortable for some progressive candidates as using existing scripts that unconsciously channel the talk, thought, dress and priorities of college-educated elites. But the point of electoral politics is not comfort; it’s coalition. And it is not purity; it’s victory.

From Pagan Animism to Alienation

How Monotheism and Capitalism Create Disenchantment

Orientation: the politics of the sacred

The word “pagan” is one of those words that has been worked over by monotheists and secular rulers so that it has many meanings, mostly  negative. This has been the case except for the past fifty years when Neopaganism has made a comeback, thanks mostly to the women’s movement. In his book Being Pagan, Rhyd Wildermuth writes that:

Being pagan means being of the land, rural villager, rustic. In modern terms, being a peasant or being a country bumpkin as opposed to the city (39) …

Rhyd tells us that Frankish or German people were called “heathens” by missionaries, meaning “dweller of the hearth”. Heathen lands were the most uncultivated places not suited for large-scale farming such as moors, scrubland and sparse forests.  This land is better for small grazing animals like sheep and goats or for hunting small game. Because of the lack of large scale land productivity, politically it tended to remain independent of urban control far longer than other agricultural people who became dependent on cities.Heathens also more easily resisted Christianization and were made fun of by Christian and urban people because of this resistance.

In addition, my own stereotypical picture of pagans is that we are:

  • Materialistic
  • Overly sensual
  • Have sacred presences that are carnal and undignified
  • Violent
  • Racist (heathens or Nazi’s)
  • Uncivilized

Rhyd writes that when people ask him what being Pagan means he points to the flooding, the droughts, the melting icecaps, the extinctions and the plagues in the world today. He writes that in pagan animist societies people took care of the land because being an animist means everything is alive and nothing is inanimate. If we lived as animists, terrible ecological circumstances would never have been possible.

When the Christians strove to take over Celtic lands, they created stories by which old pagan presences were conquered, driven out or demonized by magical or miraculous means. The stories of Graoully, Coulobre and La Tarasque are examples and these stories were widespread in France, Spain and Germany.

Scope of this article

Rhyd Wildermuth in his book Being Pagan outlines a high contrast between our alienated existence in monotheist, industrial capitalist society while taking us back in time to when we are not alienated, in pagan animistic societies. He does not specify what kind of societies these are. My best guess is he was mostly talking about hunter-gatherers, various kinds of horticulturalists and simple, small-scale farming societies. He contrasts differences in how time and place was conceived. He shows us how the treatment of the land, including fruits, vegetable, trees, plants and animals was radically different in animistic societies

One of his most interesting contrasts was how the body and mind were thought to be related. He points out that in industrial capitalist societies the mind drives the body. In animistic societies bodies drove minds. More on this later. In current times, those who are monotheists believe they have a soul that transcends death. What did pagans prior to monotheism think about this? For them, connection to the ancestors was part of the same ecological networks that connects us to rocks, rivers, plants and animals. Today, at least in Yankeedom, ancestors don’t matter. What happened and why did it happen?

Rhyd says that pagans do not believe in the supernatural. But if pagans populate the sacred worlds with gods, goddesses, earth spirits and ghosts how can they not be supernatural?

Years ago Benjamin Lee Whorf argued that language is an organ of perception. If animists think that everything is alive, how does this translate into language? We will see how it affects the proportion of nouns and verbs used, along with the proportion of tenses to indicate the past, present and future.

Because we live in a global age, all sacred traditions have to face the problem of mixing. Monotheism has been impacted by globalization, but Christian monotheism in Europe has a clear developmental trajectory: Catholicism and Protestantism. For pagans the problem is deeper because Neopaganism has had about 150 years of eclecticism. Its history has been broken up, gone underground and resumed. Should Neopagans mix with native traditions in the United States or in African societies? Should Neopagans incorporate Shintoism? Some say this is “cultural appropriation” while others say mixing traditions has always been part of polytheism.

For most of this article I will be analyzing the book Being Pagan. However, I will also be adding my own material to fill out his argument, and hopefully make it better.

Process “becoming” philosophy vs being “static” philosophy

When verbs become nouns

Rhyd points out that every known language has two primary kinds of words: nouns and verbs. They also have two secondary categories, modifiers, which are adjectives and adverbs.

  • A noun is the name of something specific
  • Verbs describe actions
  • Adjectives describe a noun
  • Adverbs describe an action

He points out that languages spoken by indigenous peoples and by ancient cultures use more verbs than nouns – especially animist cultures. Modern languages like English and French, both products of monotheism, employ more nouns than verbs. In addition, every language has a certain proportion of words devoted to describing tenses: the past, present and future.

For industrial capitalist societies, once the present is over it becomes past, and pasts are connected to things like documents, statues, relics. For animist cultures, everything is alive and moving. The present tense is part of a never-ending act of becoming. For Western monotheists today, there are people who personally are lost in the past or the future. The inability to concentrate on the present is so bad that people take meditation classes to force them to live in the present. Animist cultures have no problem living in the present.

Furthermore, it is no accident that industrial capitalist societies are more “thing”-oriented because they have writing. Writing freezes thoughts into words and words become objects. In oral animistic cultures what people say is more in the service of social-psychological interaction. On the other hand, thoughts have a short shelf life when the conversation is over. With the introduction of writing, language becomes more static and words become things frozen on a page.

Time of the moon

We are all familiar with the calendar and tracking our time in relation to days of the week? But how far back does this go? For most of the history of social evolution it was the light of the moon and its  rhythm of the new moon, half-moon and full moon which set the course, the patterns and meaning of everyday life. For pagans, the moon isn’t only visible at night, but with careful training we can see it is also visible during the day. Activities were tracked according to changes on and during moons cycles over the course of a month. Rhyd points out that the origin of the word month comes from the moon. In terms of tracking human time, at the beginning there was the month, long before there were days of the week.

There is nothing spiritual or supernatural about the moon. The tides come and go twice a day, pulled by the gravity of the moon. The tides sweep in and out daily n rhythmic patterns, twice out twice in, pulled by the moon’s gravity. The moon has different phases. During the full moon or the new moon the tide sweeps further inland and returns further from the shore than at other times. Knowing the phases of the moon is a very practical affair. It tells us when we are more likely to find fish that might be scattered on the shore. All an animist would have to do is look at the moon’s face to know when food might be more plentiful and what the conditions were best for a boat entering the ocean.

Research shows that many animals are more active during the night of the full moon. People sleep later during the full moon and longer during the new moon. Before the invention of electric lighting which enabled humanity to have the night permanently lit, people who hunted did so by using the light of the moon. Early pagans knew which phase the moon was in and they acted accordingly.

Rhyd describes how this impacts him personally:

I always feel my absolute lowest when the new moon is new and just before it is new… Noting how certain things are easiest to complete as the moon wanes, because I know that I am often more tired and feel less intuitive during new moon, I try to avoid scheduling too much for that time and instead try to rest. I find my life much more grounded and anxiety is rarely something that can overwhelm me. (22-23)

Knowledge of the moon only appears as superstitious to people living in industrial capitalist countries because they are those who are blinded by city lights, and the lack of need to hunt and fish for food. They have stopped paying attention to the moon. Until the mechanistic phase of clocks, we scheduled activities looking at the moon as well as the time we go to sleep. We city Neopagans are encouraged to look at the moon, find out where it is and what phase it is in, as well as where it has arisen and where it has set. Like anything else, it takes practice for our eyes to become sensitized to the moon and its movements. In modern city-life these sensitivities are deadened. For us, each night seems like the next and we go to sleep at the same time regardless  of the moon or whether it is wintertime or summertime. We have lost our rhythm.

Cyclic time to clock and linear time

It is not just the moon that waxes and wanes. The yearly seasons change throughout the years depending on the zones around the earth. Plants and animals follow the seasons, going through developmental cycles of growth and death. Different animist cultures follow suit, dividing their cycle of the year according to the temperate or polar regions. Those who have four seasons in temperate zones divide their years into four quarters. The “time of land” tells us when berries or tomatoes are ripest. On the other hand, upper-middle class people living in industrial capitalist societies, especially Yankeedom, have come to expect the same fruits and vegetables to be available all year, regardless of the season.

Rhyd  says the land has character just like human temperaments do. She is gruff, grizzled, hearty, stoic, or lush. The combination of minerals are different in some places than they are elsewhere. She is shaped by the rocks, the wind, the cold, heat and the humidity. Rhyd points out local lands themselves have a unique taste. Whether wild or domesticated, those same plants and animals taste differently depending on the quality of land they are grown and live in. By saying pagans are of the land it just means understanding basic ecological dynamics: how it works on humanity and how humanity works on it.

This natural time was the enemy of Protestants anxious to abolish the seasonal holidays, and capitalists who wanted to discipline workers to punch a time clock and work long hours regardless of the seasons or the phases of the moon. They wanted disciplined workers to accept clock time. In animist time, when people worked, they also slept during the day. Even as late as in early modern Europe, when artisans were given an order by merchants, they took breaks when they wanted to. They controlled the pace of their work. In the early Industrial Age capitalists were insensitive to workers being sick or tired. If they didn’t continue working they would be replaced.

Keeping time has a long history deep into ancient civilizations. They used the sun dials, water clocks and hour-glasses. But these were not precise and they were not used by artisans or peasants. Clocks were used by the upper classes as a luxury item. They were used by alchemists in cooking the elements or by astrologers for casting the horoscope of great political figures. Bell towers were used to remind people to pray or to announce foreign invasions or fires.

In addition, as cities rose and farming declined the drive to see time cyclically waned. Cyclic time was replaced by linear time. Capitalists hate the past because the past is a reminder that their system is historical. Linear time is laid out like a straight line moving from past to present to future. Once the past is over, unlike cyclic time, it never returns. But capitalists need to display the future as always open, and where anything can happen. This feeds into the ideology that any person can become a capitalist if they have the right psychological state.

Becoming Body

One of the most interesting arguments in this book is the relationship between the body and the mind. Rhyd says we do not have bodies, we are becoming bodies. This means that:

  • There is no getting out of being a body
  • We are becoming bodies. This connects to the difference between process and static philosophy that we touched on earlier.

For example, Rhyd points out that hunger and thirst were not something you were or had, but something you did. Being thirsty is passive state, a condition that needs to be resolved. It is something that has happened to you. On the other hand, thirsting for water is an active state. It is not happening to you. It is something you try to do something about. But then you expend energy at work and you become thirsty again. The body is constantly reproducing itself with needs, satisfaction and new needs.

How we came to have bodies

Just as we have externalized and reified our language, we have externalized our bodies and separated them from ourselves, making them something we have rather than something we are. This negative attitude about the body is not unique to Western monotheism. In the East we hear we are “trapped in the body” or we are “a prison of flesh” that needs to be escaped from. Occultists claim we “are inhabiting different bodies”. Teenage girls “hate their bodies”. To say we have a body implies that there can be a state without one. What’s left? Minds without bodies, a product of patriarchal sacred traditions, not paganism.

According to Wildermuth, the reasons for this anti-body orientation include the development of Christianity with the separation of the soul from the body. Secondly, Descartes added to this by claiming the mind can be separated from the body. Lastly, capitalism insisted on the discipline of the body during capitalist production to conform to the pump and lever in Early Modern Europe. Later, human bodies are disciplined again as a reflection of the complex machines and the steam engine in the second half of the 19th century. In the early 20th century the bodies of workers were subjected to the time and motion studies of Taylorism.

Ecological networks are bodies

In pagan understanding, everything that exists is in terms of living bodies. Ecological settings are bodies too. Having a body is like seeing a body mechanically, seeing a body as a collection of separate things. Imagining having bodies has negative ecological consequences. Seeing the forest as a collection of separate beings rather than a body leads to:

  • Killing off of species of insects
  • Hunting too many of the birds and animals
  • Felling too many trees
  • Damming a river or taking too many fish from a lake which can turn the entire system into something unlivable for everything there

Doing this to our ecology is like removing an organ from a human body and expecting it to work right. It is only possible for us to do such destructive things to the natural world because we do not see it as body, but rather separate things unrelated to each other. Rhyd tells us that:

Over the last 100 years alone, 543 species of terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds and mammals) have gone extinct worldwide, a rate of disappearance that would have historically occurred  over 10,000 years. That is, the rate of extinction is occurring 1,000 times faster for such beings now. (91-92)

Alienation from trees

Rhyd points out that oaks are special trees for pagan people. Oaks are more likely than shorter species of trees to be hit by lightning and are more likely to survive a lightning strike. It is no accident that oaks were associated with the gods of thunder. Oaks also protected other trees from storms and high winds. Many oaks grow very old, outlasting the rise and fall of civilizations. When oaks die they are put to sacred use as shrines or temples by Celtic and Germanic peoples  An oak struck by lightning became a political ritual site, often becoming a place for major decisions. The importance of oaks to pagans was not lost on monotheists who ordered the cutting down of oaks dedicated to Thor to make the conversion of pagan peoples to Christianity easier. The Christians then built Cathedrals from the oaks.

Alienation from other animals

In my diet, much of my protein comes from eating chicken and fish. I know two women vegans who insisted I watch documentaries of what goes on in slaughter houses and chicken factories. I watched part of one and then turned it off. I didn’t want to know my eating habits were linked to so much suffering, but I continue to buy chicken at the supermarket. I’m confident I am not alone. We buy meat in packages at the supermarket but we rarely know anything about the process by which these dead animals arrived there. Rhyd points out that the flesh of these beings:

is processed by machines into forms that would be unrecognizable to people even a hundred years ago. Cows, pigs, chickens live in settings that look much more like factories than the pastoral landscapes. (93)

Contrary to all this, animist views see all living forms to include not just plants and animals, but rocks and rivers are also connected to the ancestors. Animists are engaged in reciprocal exchange of gratitude. When humans killed an animal, they apologized to the animal and made sure that future hunts were conducted in ways that did not thin out the species they hunted. This contrasts to monotheists who tell humanity we have “domain over nature. It is there for us to do what we want”. It is easy to see how this domain would directly link up to the scientific exploration of the 17th and 18th centuries and capitalist exploitation of land through colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The importance of ancestry for pagans

Today, especially in the United States, ancestry is not anything that is taken seriously. For the most part, people can’t trace their genealogy beyond their grandparents. Sure, there is new interest in tracing genealogical trees but in my opinion this is a fad. Whatever value and meaning this has, it is certainly not pursued with the same level of building a serious sacred connection. Most Yankees do not hope to have their ancestors come to them in their dreams, in their homes or giving them direction. Our relationship with ancestors is thin. In part, this is because we didn’t live near them because capitalist enclosures drive communities apart. This has been widened even further in the 20th century by capitalists. Geographical industrial specialization drives people to work in different parts of the country. In addition, the rate of change in industrial capitalist societies is so fast that the wisdom of the ancestors dries up quickly because the world has changed so much between generations. As gaps between generations grow, political differences emerge as to how to handle the change. Ancestry is marginalized as race and class identities replace them.

Pagans on the other hand, because they were not displaced, lived in the same location for many generations and they could trace their ancestors well beyond their grandparents. Secondly, because the rate of change was slow, the knowledge of the ancestors was respected knowledge that did not change much between generations. This means their politics are similar. Lastly, since tribal societies did not have classes and groups, ethnic composition was similar. There was no class or race identity to compete with ancestry. In many cultures a common truth is that the dead speak to us in our sleep.

Scale of pagan presences

According to Rhyd Wildermuth, in most pagan societies there are four levels of scale.

At the bottom and the smallest level there are shrines to the home. On a larger scale there are rituals to the ancestors. On the third level there are community festivals which include arts and crafts. Lastly, there are offerings to a god a few times a year. It’s important to understand that these scales are not hierarchically organized. In other words, the gods do not control the community rituals, ancestors or shrine presences. What is true is that they are organized in terms of the frequency with which they are enacted, beginning with the shrines in the home. In animistic societies when something is strange or has gone wrong, the spirits are not seen as evil but in the wrong place. The job of the shaman is to understand the problem and resolve it.

What happens when monotheism arises? Shrines are marginalized and in the case of Catholicism, replaced by pictures of saints in the house. Ancestors lose their connection to the rocks, rivers, plants and animals along with their wisdom. Community rituals and outdoor places are replaced with patron saints. The pagan gods, whether dragons or giants, are demonized and replaced by a single monotheistic deity.

Are spirits, ancestors and gods internal to us or external?

The key to understanding the difference between animalism and monotheism centers on where the sacred source originates. For animistic people, consciousness is diffused so that spirits, ancestors and even gods are inside our psyche and project outward. This is based on the unconscious intelligence of the body. Under monotheism, our alienation from the body is an important obstacle to our understanding of magic. As a result, for monotheists both spirits and God are external, objective and have little to do with our psychology

Magic is the unconscious intelligence of the body

Rhyd has a very interesting although strange definition of magick. He argues that magick is the unconscious perceptual wisdom of the body that is constantly reacting to the real world, which we have forgotten to notice in our modern world. Our bodies are constantly steering us in everyday life. When we speak of the unconscious, partly what we really mean is everything that our body knows and senses.

A very simple example is body memory. It is a process by which you find your way through a dark room that you know very well. Another example is being able to drive down a familiar road where your motor skills take you home while you are zoning out on music. Another example is if you are playing the outfield and you know how far back to go for a fly ball just by hearing the sound of the bat. In the case of baseball, that body knowledge has never been consciously processed. We know things we don’t realize we know. A pagan definition of magick is aligning consciousness to the body in order to enact change. Consciousness is the servant of the body. It is the directed focus of the body. Magick means giving attention to what the body is telling us and acting consciously in accordance with it.  Our conscious attention, including our minds or our egos, is not the true seat of knowledge.

Meditation is not magick. Rhyd says:

In most forms of meditation a person stills their thoughts in order to have better control over consciousnessand the ways in which it was directed. (158)

Magick is not about quieting our thoughts in a disembodied way. It is about listening to how those thoughts are related to the sensations of our body.

Eudaemons and genii’s vs the eternal soul and permanent genius

In animistic societies people recognized that benevolent protective presences entered into the person at birth and left the body at death. Even as late as the time of the Greeks such presences were called eudaemons. The Romans called them genii’s and made shrines for them. This was too much commotion for monotheists, and St. Augustine replaced these fluid presences with a noun like eternal soul. Long after monotheism, in 20th century intelligence testing, we have the same noun – like genius – which is permanently attached to the eternal soul. For pagans, people were not geniuses themselves but had a particularly helpful genii to whom they listened.

Left and Right Sacred

In the early days of animism, from hunter-gatherers 100,000 years ago up to the Bronze Age civilization of 5,000 years ago, animists kept to their local identity and did not try to mix cultures. The great civilizations of the ancient world certainly traded enough so that pagan people became aware of other pagan people. Did they keep separate or did they mix? Their answer was always to mix and to synthesize. With the rise of globalization, the knowledge across cultures became even more intense. However, in the last 50 years, Neopaganism arose as part of the women’s movement. Because Neopaganism has a broken and suppressed history rather than a single stream leading all the way back as monotheists do, it has to determine what it will mix and match with. A new problem emerged for Neopaganism as the New Age emerged in England and the United States. A significant number of New Age organizations were small capitalists who have overridden Neopagan resistance to commercialization.  New Age organizers have offered people courses that have drawn from native cultures (from the United States and Africa) and have turned a nice profit. Some native cultures have fought back against this. So pagan mixing cross-culturally has become politicized because of the ravenous nature of capitalists for profits.

There are two tendencies within paganism. Right-wing pagans think that the sacred should be orderly, that there should be separation between the sacred and the secular and the sacred traditions should be kept pure, based on exclusion and supposed genetic ancestry. These are represented by far-right groups who are nationalist, some neo-Nazis. They say white people should only involve themselves with European gods.

The left-wing pagans care less about order and are more interested in continuing the historical paganistic mixing. The socialist wing is very aware of the exploitation of cultural appropriation but they don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. They want to trust spontaneously mixing, multiplying and adding. They do not want to keep the sacred and secular separate, but are committed to expanding the sacred into the secular. We do this, not because we want an animistic theocracy, but because sacred pagan life will challenge the capitalistic control over secular life.

What is ironic is the so-called social justice movements that demand that cultures don’t mix because they think mixing is inherently exploitative. Yet they wind up on the same side as the right-wing sacred pagans. They also want to keep things pure but for different reasons than right-wing pagans.

Criticisms

I do not disagree with anything that was said in Being Pagan. However, the contrast between rural tribal paganism and monotheism and capitalism is too severe and some transitions need to be at least suggested. For example, there is nothing said about the city paganism of the Greeks and Romans, the Alexandrians of North Africa or the city magick of Renaissance Italy. At least a few pages of some of the differences between city and rural paganism would have been very helpful along with some references. This is especially important  since today the overwhelming number of Neopagans live in cities.

As I said earlier, the kind of animism described is overwhelmingly tribal. But in between tribal societies and industrial societies are agricultural states where the goddesses and gods predominate. Had this been included, there would be an evolutionary sense of movement from animism to industrial capitalism. As it stands now, Rhyd’s description of alienation would have come about gradually. Without that alienation seems to come out of nowhere. A few  pages about the polytheism of agricultural states would have thickened history and minimized abrupt changes.

Third, it was disappointing to me to have the word “god” introduced along with land spirits and ancestors and used interchangeably. Typically, the word “god” is used to indicate a degree of power that is more powerful than ancestors or land spirits or nature nymphs, yet this distinction is left out. A good example is the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses who were superior to humanity in scope and scale. Why introduce the word god at all unless it was used to refer to something different than other sacred presences?

Fourth, In his book All That is Sacred is Profaned, Rhyd claims to be a Marxist. His purpose is to introduce Marxism to Pagans. But in Being Pagan there is no mention of Marxism. Given that Marxism denies the ontological existence of a spiritual world, it would have been helpful to explain somewhere, either in the preface or an epilogue, how he squares a Marxist denial of the sacred world with the paganism he espouses in Being Pagan, especially in his chapter “The Fire of Meaning”.

Fifth, the definition of magick is limited to tapping into the unconscious wisdom of the body. This is an important addition to pagan practice. But why call it magick? Why not call it “body” knowledge? Furthermore, magick is often defined as changing consciousness through the use of imagination along with saturating the senses though the use of theatre and the art as in “Tree of Life” magick. There is no mention of any of this.

Lastly, ritual descriptions are disappointingly skimpy and it makes it seem as if all pagan rituals are private. This ignores the fact that most pagans practice magick in groups. There should be at least some description of group rituals to see how his animism would be practiced.• First published at  Socialist Planning Beyond CapitalismFacebookTwitter

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his three books found on Amazon. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.

The Secret Wars of the US Imperium

To get to where they are, imperial powers will deceive, dissimulate and distort. The US imperium, that most awesome of devilish powers, has tentacled itself across the globe, often unbeknownst to its own citizens.

In a report released by the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center of Justice titled Secret War: How the US Uses Partnerships and Proxy Forces to Wage War Under the Radar, there is little to shock, though much to be concerned about.  The author of the report contends that the list of countries supplied by the Pentagon on US military partnerships is a savagely clipped one.  The list is so wrong that 17 countries have been omitted.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, betrays a charmless naivete in remarking that the “proliferation of secret war is a relatively recent phenomenon”, something she regards as “undemocratic and dangerous”.  She is certainly right about the last two points, but distinctly wrong about the novelty.

The United States, since its inception, has schemed, through purchase, conspiracy and force of arms, to spread its power and embrace an empire without declaring it.  Along with that embrace came the perceived need to wage secret war.

The illegal, covert engagement by US forces in Laos was one of the most brutal examples of a clandestine conflict raged unawares to many politicians back home.  It was, as the dark title of Joshua Kurlantzick’s book on the subject suggests, a great place to have war.

It began with a Central Intelligence Agency outfit training and arming members of the Hmong ethnic minority who would, some 14 years later, partake in full scale engagements with Communist allies of the North Vietnamese.

This development was accompanied by an aerial campaign that saw more bombs dropped by the US than used by its air force in the entirety of World War II.  Between 1964 and 1973, more than 2.5 million tons of ordnance from over 580,000 bombing sorties was dropped.

US lawmakers tend to express much surprise that US forces should mysteriously appear in countries they can barely find on the map.  But to a large extent, the circumstances arose with their own connivance.  The authorising backdrop to such engagements centre on a number of instruments that have proliferated since September 11, 2001: the US Title 10 authorities, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), deployment notifications under the War Powers Resolution, and the souped up idea of the right to self-defence.

Of concern here is the broad umbrella of “security cooperation” programs that are authorised by Congress under the AUMF against designated terrorist groups.  Codified as 10 U.S.C.§ 333, the provision permits the DoD to train and equip foreign forces in any part of the globe.

Section 127e, or 10 U.S.C. §127e, stands out, as it authorises the DoD to “provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism.”

The 2001 AUMF has become an instrument of vast elasticity, stretched by every administration since its inception to cover a list of terrorist groups that remains secret to the public.  The executive had long withheld the list from Congress, something it was bound to do given its cavalier interpretation as to what “associated forces” in the context of terrorist groups are.

The DoD has also kept quiet on the specific circumstances US forces operate under these authorities.  As Ebright puts it, the reasoning at play is “that the incident was too minor to trigger statutory reporting requirements.” Confrontations deemed “episodic” and part and parcel of “irregular” warfare do not amount to “hostilities”.

Another accretion of secrecy, and one aided by its important premise of deniability, is the Presidential Approval and Reporting of Covert Actions, 50 U.S.C. § 3093 (1991).  Again, the 9/11 terrorist bogey has featured in targeted killings and assassinations, despite assertions to the contrary.

Perhaps the most startling nature to such cooperation programs is the scope granted by Section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018.  While it mirrors Section 127e in some respects, the focus here is not on counterterrorism but supporting “irregular warfare operations” against “rogue states”.  Ebright strikes a bleak note.  “Far beyond the bounds of the war on terror, §1202 may be used to engage in low-level conflict with powerful, even nuclear, states.”

Every now and then, the veil of secrecy on such operations has been pierced.  In 2017, four members of the US Army Green Berets, along with four soldiers from Niger, were killed in an ambush outside the village of Tongo Tongo.  It was the highest loss of life for US military personnel since 1993, when 18 Army Rangers perished in the Somalian Black Hawk Down incident.

What was head shakingly odd about the whole affair was not merely the surprise shown by members of Congress by this engagement, but the nonplussed way the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, General Joseph Dunford, called for an investigation.  His sole objectives were to ascertain whether US forces had “adequate intelligence, equipment and training” and whether there was “a pre-mission assessment of the threat in the area” of appropriate accuracy.  Surely the more relevant question would have been what these modern kitted-up Roman legionnaires were doing without broader awareness back home?

The findings of the summary report, and those of Pentagon officials, was that militants in the area had “superior firepower”.  For every US and Nigerien soldier came three attackers.  Again, this misses the overall point about clandestine operations that even some in the upper echelons of Washington know little about.

Despite a number of public statements claiming that the US military role in theatres such as Africa are confined to “advising and assisting” local militaries, the operational reality has occasionally intruded.

In 2018, the now retired General Donald Bolduc, who commanded US special forces in Africa till 2017, had enough boastful candour to reveal that the army had “guys in Kenya, Chad, Cameroon, Niger [and] Tunisia who are doing the same kinds of things as the guys in Somalia, exposing themselves to the same kind of danger not just on 127 echoes.  We’ve had guys wounded in all the types of missions that we do.”

Ebright recommends that mere reform of “outdated and overstretched AUMFs” will not do.  “Congress should repeal or reform the Department of Defense’s security cooperation authorities.  Until it does so, the nation will continue to be at war – without, in some cases, the consent or even knowledge of its people.”

That’s hardly going to happen.  The security establishment in Washington and a coterie of amnesiacs are keen on keeping a lid on the fact that the US has been a garrison, warring state since 1941.  And the next big conflict is just around the corner.  Appearances must be kept.FacebookTwitterReddit

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.