U.S. evangelicals flooded with 'information aimed at making them fearful, hostile': author

Matthew Chapman

RAW STORY
December 8, 2023 

Evangelical worshippers (Photo by Larry Marano for Shutterstock)

Evangelical support for former President Donald Trump, despite his own lack of devout faith, is no accident, author Tim Alberta told former CNN anchor Brian Stelter in an interview for Vanity Fair.

Rather, he argued, it is part of a deliberate campaign to radicalize and terrify them into loyalty — and part of what's driving that is a "disproportionality crisis" of the information they are receiving.

"“If you go to church on Sunday morning, you are going to be in the word with your pastor for, you know, 30 minutes, maybe 40, 45 minutes, and you sing some songs, and you say the prayers, and then you are out in the world for the rest of the week,” said Alberta. “And for most of these folks, as they’re out in the world, they are marinating in talk radio, in cable news, in social media—all of this information that is aimed at making them angry, fearful, hostile.”

Whereas they may hear Jesus' message of tolerance, love, and forgiveness “on Sunday morning for 45 minutes, but then for 4, 5, 6, 10 hours during the week, you’re hearing the exact opposite. And it’s that ratio being so far out of whack that I think is really at the heart of the crisis here.”

And that's assuming they're at a church that will even give them messages of love and forgiveness in the first place — many pro-Trump pastors, like Greg Locke of Tennessee, have messages that are far angrier.

“[Trump] may not share their views, he may not sit in the pews with them, he may not read the good book like they do, but in some way, that’s his superpower,” Alberta explained. “He is free to fight in ways that are, you know, unrestrained, unmoored from biblical virtue. And that relationship with Trump has obviously evolved over the last eight years. What started as this very uneasy alliance for a lot of evangelicals with Trump has now morphed into this situation where, look, desperate times call for desperate measures. The barbarians are at the gates and we need a barbarian to keep them at bay." This means that Trump's increasingly dictatorial rhetoric is a natural outlet for the rage and frustration these evangelical voters are being fed.

None of this is to say that Trump has completely unified the evangelical world. Cracks have appeared in recent months, with prominent evangelical leaders like Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa endorsing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis out of concern about Trump's electoral viability.

Groundbreaking study pinpoints Trump’s role in surge of negativity in U.S. political discourse

2023/12/05


In a significant shift from previous trends, recent research has uncovered a sharp rise in negative language use by politicians in the United States, particularly aligning with Donald Trump’s entry into the political scene in 2015. The new study is unprecedented in its comprehensive analysis of millions of quotes from politicians over 12 years, using advanced linguistic tools to assess the escalation of negative language.

The findings, published in Scientific Reports, provide evidence that this shift towards negativity has persisted beyond election campaigns, indicating a lasting change in the tone of political conversation in the United States.

In recent years, many Americans have felt that the language of politics has grown increasingly negative. This perception has been especially prominent since Trump’s foray into the political arena. Previous studies have suggested growing political polarization and negativity, but until now, concrete evidence showing the evolution of political language over time was lacking. This gap in knowledge spurred researchers to investigate whether the perceived negativity aligns with actual changes in political discourse.

“In 2016, when Trump was elected president, everyone had the impression that the tone of politics had become rougher, uglier, and more negative,” said study author Robert West, an assistant professor and head of the Data Science Lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne.

“As data scientists, we were curious to see whether people’s hunch was right. But we didn’t have data for it yet, since there was no public corpus of news quotations linked to the people who had uttered them. So we went on a four-year journey to compile such a corpus, Quotebank, and by the time we were done collecting the data, Trump’s term was done, too. So by the time we could analyze the tone of politics, we had Obama’s as well as Trump’s presidencies to study.”

Quotebank comprises nearly a quarter-billion quotes extracted from over 127 million online news articles spanning 12 years, from September 2008 to April 2020. To focus specifically on U.S. politics, the researchers extracted 24 million quotes from 18,627 politicians, ensuring a comprehensive and representative sample for the current study.

To objectively measure the tone of political language over time, the research team employed a tool called the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), which analyzes text for various psychological and emotional content. Each quote was scored based on the percentage of words reflecting negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, and sadness, as well as the use of swear words. The researchers then averaged these scores monthly, creating a timeline of political language tone over 12 years.

The researchers found a substantial spike in the use of negative language starting in June 2015, aligning with the beginning of Donald Trump’s primary campaign. This wasn’t just a small uptick; the frequency of negative emotion words surged by 1.6 standard deviations, an 8% increase from the pre-campaign average. The increase wasn’t limited to general negativity but spanned across specific categories like anger, anxiety, sadness, and swear words.

Interestingly, while there was a significant jump in negative language in 2015, the study also found that the overall tone of political language had actually been decreasing in negativity during Barack Obama’s presidency before this point. This suggests a notable shift in the political climate with Trump’s entry into politics.

One of the most revealing aspects of the study was the influence of prominent speakers, particularly Donald Trump, on this trend. When Trump’s quotes were removed from the analysis, the jump in negative language in June 2015 dropped by 40%, indicating his significant impact. However, the increase in negativity was not solely due to Trump. The trend persisted even when his quotes were excluded, indicating a broader shift in the political landscape. The negative tone persisted throughout Trump’s term, indicating a lasting change in the political discourse.

“People’s hunch is true: during Trump’s presidency, the tone of U.S. politics became significantly more negative, and it happened as a sudden jump at the time when Trump’s primary campaign started,” West told PsyPost.

Additionally, the researchers found systematic differences in the use of negative language based on party affiliation and the party’s role at the federal level. Notably, the increase in negative language from June 2015 onwards was more pronounced among Republican politicians compared to their Democrat counterparts.

While the findings are robust, the study is not without its limitations. One key consideration is the role of media in shaping the dataset. Since the quotes were sourced from online news articles, it’s possible that the observed increase in negativity could be influenced by the media’s reporting preferences or biases. Additionally, the study focused on digital news sources, which might not fully represent the wider media landscape, including traditional news outlets and television.

The study, “United States politicians’ tone became more negative with 2016 primary campaigns“, was authored by Jonathan Külz, Andreas Spitz, Ahmad Abu-Akel, Stephan Günnemann, and Robert West.

© PsyPost

Rob Reiner: Trump embodies the 'fascism' Norman Lear devoted his life to defeating

Rob Reiner in 2016 (Creative Commons)

Alex Henderson

December 07, 2023

When Christian nationalists and far-right white evangelicals achieved prominence in the GOP in the early 1980s, two of their most aggressive and outspoken opponents were a liberal and a conservative.

The conservative was Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), a scathing critic of Pat Robertson and the Major Majority's Jerry Falwell Sr. The liberal was television producer, World War 2 veteran and People for the American Way founder Norman Lear, who was 101 when he passed away on Tuesday, December 5.

Lear changed the face of American sitcoms during the 1970s, producing the groundbreaking "All in the Family" and spinoffs that included "Maude," "Good Times" and "The Jeffersons." While 1960s sitcoms were known for being cute and innocuous, Lear's shows were edgy and overtly political.

On "All in the Family," the late Carroll O'Connor portrayed racist Archie Bunker — who often had heated debates with his liberal son-in-law Mike Stivic, played by actor, director and political activist Rob Reiner. In real life, O'Connor was nothing like Bunker; he was a big supporter of liberal causes, not unlike Lear and Reiner

After Lear's death, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (a Never Trump conservative) praised "All in the Family" as "50 years ahead of its time" and argued that the "shockingly politically incorrect" show is as "relevant as it's ever been" in 2023's tense political climate.

In an interview with Rolling Stone's Marlow Stern published on December 6, Reiner, now 76, discussed Lear's accomplishments and warned that 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump embodies the type of "fascism" that Lear fought against.

"The guy was a fighter, and he was tough," Reiner said of Lear during the interview. "I mean, really tough. The guy flew 57 bombing missions over Nazi Germany during the Second World War. He fought for this country and didn't take crap from anybody. The idea that less than 80 years after we defeat fascism, that it's staring us in the face again — he couldn't believe it. Where did the country that he loved so much go?"

READ MORE: Rob Reiner: 2024 is all about stopping 'fascist' Trump from becoming a full-fledged dictator

Reiner continued, "I just hope that we get rid of Trump so that we preserve our democracy. All those people in the Second World War worked hard to defeat fascism, so the idea that we would slip into fascism less than 80 years later is unfathomable. He fought this his entire life. Everything he did was to fight for a more perfect union. And Norman and I had these discussions hundreds of times, and he couldn't recognize the country he fought for."

Reiner noted that Lear, with People for the American Way, was a blistering opponent of the Religious Right and Christian nationalism — which, Reiner warned, is a prominent part of Trump's authoritarian playbook in the 2024 election.

"Were seeing the Christian Right being the foundation for everything that happened on January 6, and we're seeing them embrace Donald Trump," Reiner told Stern. "It's that same fascistic sensibility: it's their way, and nobody else is allowed to have their thoughts. He's been fighting that for decades."

Reiner added, "We just finished this documentary 'God & Country' about the rise of Christian nationalism, and everything he's fought against still exists — and it not only exists, but is taking over. It has a major foothold on the American psyche. We have to do everything we can in this upcoming election to make sure it doesn't win. It's not an exaggeration to say you're either voting for democracy or fascism."

READ MORE: Christian nationalism is 'a political identity more than a religious one': expert

Read Rolling Stone's full interview with Rob Reiner at this link (subscription required).

We can stop out of control CEO pay — here's how


Robert Reich

December 04, 2023

The pay disparity between CEOs and typical workers has become obscene. But there’s something we can do about this. (I’ll get to it in a moment.)

First, some history and numbers:

In 1965, CEOs typically earned 20 times the typical worker's pay.

By 1979, the ratio between a CEO’s pay and that of the median worker was 33 to 1.

As of 2021, the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio had grown to 399 to 1.


Since the late 1970s, CEO pay increased more than 1,200 percent.

At the same time, the pay of the typical American workers rose 18 percent.

Inevitably, some of that obscene amount of CEO pay goes into PACs and campaign contributions.

As a result, wealthy CEOs in effect write many laws. (And when billionaires bestow gifts on Supreme Court justices, they also determine how the laws are enforced and interpreted.)

This is part of the story of how American capitalism has become rigged in favor of those at the top. It leads us directly to oligarchy — rule by the richest few, putting democracy at risk.

It’s also partly why so many Americans have become angry and cynical — some even succumbing to the false allure of Trump and neofascism.

What to do?

I’m pleased to report that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Reps. Barbara Lee and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have introduced the Curtailing Executive Overcompensation (CEO) Act. It’s designed to address the problem of out-of-control CEO pay by levying an excise tax on corporations whose CEO-to-median-worker pay disparities are 50 to 1 or greater.

The corporate tax rate would be a sliding scale — pegged to the degree to which the ratio of CEO pay (including salary, bonuses, and stock options) to worker pay is greater than 50 to 1.

The tax would apply to big companies with gross income of $100 million per year or more and payrolls totaling $10 million or more.

This legislation deserves wide support. Lawmakers need to know how popular it is. Joe Biden should get behind it.

How can you help? Alert your representatives that you want them to support this.

Click here to sign and send your message to your members of Congress.


Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

The GOP’s death cycle — and how the party turns fascist

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) listens in the House Chamber during the second day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 04, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images).

Robert Reich

December 07, 2023

Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina announced Tuesday that he won’t be seeking reelection.

McHenry steered the House as acting speaker during the chaos following Kevin McCarthy’s ouster. McHenry helped negotiate this year’s debt limit deal. He’s also one of the House’s most prominent policy wonks.

Retirements across both parties are already outpacing those of the past three election cycles.

The retirements are unlikely to alter the balance of political power in the House or Senate, since most come from “safe” districts that will almost certainly elect someone else from the same party.

But the retirements may alter the balance of integrity, making the Republican Party even less principled than it is now.

Some pending Republican retirees, like McHenry, are institutionalists who care more about policy than ideology. They respect the Constitution and want Congress to run well. A few actively opposed Trump.

McHenry was one of the handful of House Republicans who voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory in 2020.

Another House Republican who announced he won’t seek reelection is Colorado Representative Ken Buck.

Buck has denounced his party’s election denialism and the refusal of many Republican lawmakers to condemn the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. “We lost our way,” Buck told The New York Times. “We have an identity crisis in the Republican Party. If we can’t address the election denier issue and we continue down that path, we won’t have credibility with the American people that we are going to solve problems.”

Several other Republican institutionalists exited before the 2022 midterms. Former Republican Representative Anthony Gonzalez, who was one of only 10 House Republicans to vote in favor of Trump’s second impeachment, left because of threats received by him and his family.

Former Republican congressman Peter Meijer, another of the 10, also exited before the 2022 midterms. He stated that the day after the vote, he purchased body armor and made changes to his daily schedule due to threats against his life.

Meijer also noted that his colleagues who voted not to certify the 2020 election “knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families. They felt that that vote would put their families in danger.”

In the Senate, Utah’s Mitt Romney, a Republican institutionalist, will not be seeking reelection.

The degeneration of the GOP has occurred over many years. I witnessed the first major purge of so-called moderate Republicans in 1994, when Newt Gingrich took over the House. The Senate still contained a few moderate Republicans: I worked with Senators Mark Hatfield, Arlen Specter, John Chafee, Jim Jeffords, William Cohen, and Susan Collins on several pieces of legislation. I found them all to be thoughtful and reasonable.

But moderate Republicans are gone from Congress. Soon, any Republican lawmaker still possessing some integrity will also be gone.

The Republican Party is in an integrity death cycle. As the GOP is taken over by Trump’s enablers and sycophants, the few remaining principled Republican lawmakers want out. As they depart, the Trump rot spreads.

Republican lawmakers who remain are the most self-aggrandizing and least principled. Which in turn causes the GOP to degenerate further.

Tragically and frighteningly, this means that if Trump regains the presidency, Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states will be even readier to do his bidding.

Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

Are rents rising in your neighborhood? Don’t blame the baristas


The Conversation

November 26, 2023

Baristas who work in specialty coffee shops, along with hipsters more generally, have been referred to as the “shock troops” of urban gentrification – and it’s no different in Philadelphia. These servers of artisanal coffee contribute to economic and demographic changes in neighborhoods in two ways.

First, they work in coffee shops that appeal to a new wave of middle-class residents who can afford higher rents – while at the same time alienating longtime and less economically advantaged residents.

Second, these baristas almost invariably live in gentrifying neighborhoods. They don’t have much money, but they tend to exude a cool, white middle-class presence. The appearance of specialty coffee shops and baristas signifies that a neighborhood is becoming trendy and more expensive.

As a professor of sociology at Temple University who is fascinated with urban artistic subcultures, I recently published a book called “Barista in the City” with co-authors Keith McIntosh and Ewa Protasiuk. In 2019, we interviewed 61 baristas in a variety of gentrifying neighborhoods in Philadelphia, including Fishtown, Kensington, Point Breeze and West Philadelphia.

We wanted to understand why baristas become gentrifiers and how they view their role as agents of change.

Privileged but low-wage workers

A few baristas whom we interviewed were managers or assistant managers. Some were employed by Starbucks, but the vast majority worked in specialty coffee shops that strive to outdo Starbucks by offering coffee that is slightly more expensive and relatively high in quality, sustainability and fairness to coffee farmers.

We classified most of the baristas we interviewed as either artistic baristas or coffee careerists.

Artistic baristas work in coffee shops primarily because they offer flexible employment that allows time for low-paid artistic activities, or enables them to finance their undergraduate education at art schools or other academic institutions.

Coffee careerists, on the other hand, have a strong interest in artisanal coffee. They aspire to become coffee shop managers, coffee roasters or coffee buyers who travel to other countries in search of the best beans.

Both types of baristas were attracted to the relatively relaxed coffee shop environment. They enjoy chatting with their co-workers and favorite customers. Many stated that they have nothing against those who do corporate work but wouldn’t feel comfortable in that environment. “I would probably like lose my mind in a 9-to-5 kind of thing,” an artistic barista explained. “I just am not that type of person. I don’t like paperwork. I also don’t like the feeling of not being able to be myself. … I just know I would end up hating it.”

Most come from middle-class families and have attended, if not graduated, from college. As such, they have rejected relatively well-paid, middle-class positions in favor of an occupation suited to the lifestyle they wish to lead.

Living in a gentrifying neighborhood not only enables them to be near their job, but also to be near emerging art and music scenes, thrift shops or vegan eateries. It also provides relatively low-cost housing that is compatible with their budgets. The average barista in our sample earned $23,000 per year in 2019 and typically worked 32 hours per week.


A view from Fishtown, a former working-class Philadelphia neighborhood that’s been heavily gentrified.

On being a gentrifier

The baristas we interviewed tended to view gentrification as a process that is harmful to lower socioeconomic class and mostly minority populations. A barista who observed affluent university students move into a low-income West Philadelphia neighborhood and displace working-class Black residents stated: “Obviously, it’s terrible.”

They felt a degree of guilt about being part of this process. But their low-wage employment and need for affordable urban space that is compatible with their lifestyle caused them to feel they have little recourse to make other residential decisions.

“I understand that I’m also part of the problem when it comes to gentrifying an area,” one of the baristas said. “My boyfriend tends to disagree with me on that. He’s like, ‘Well, where are we going to move, then?’ And it’s true. Like, I don’t know, we can’t afford to live in Rittenhouse Square. I can just barely afford to live in Fishtown at this point. I thought this would be a good area for meeting other creatives. And I don’t want to live in the suburbs.”

Many baristas, however, were ignorant of the role that their coffee shop plays in commercial gentrification. They tend to believe that such shops open only after a neighborhood has already gentrified. As one barista put it: “I think coffee shops are a symptom rather than a cause of gentrification. They spring up in neighborhoods that have already been taken over by gentrifiers.”

Urban scholarship suggests that the relationship is more complicated, with coffee shops being both a cause and effect of neighborhood gentrification.

While specialty coffee shops generally present themselves as progressive and inclusive, longtime residents often view them as expensive, culturally alienating and what American sociologist Elijah Anderson referred to as “white spaces.” Furthermore, these cafes often displace other retail businesses that long-term residents relied on.


There are, of course, some specialty coffee shops in Philadelphia that have designed their prices, programming and decor to attract customers and residents that often feel excluded from such shops. These include Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books in Germantown and Kayuh Bicycles & Cafe in Francisville. Some, like Quaker City Coffee and The Monkey & the Elephant in Brewerytown, employ vulnerable populations such as formerly incarcerated people and former foster youth. But specialty coffee shops designed to appeal to those that often feel excluded are rare, and they employ only a handful of baristas.

Blame the barista?

The coffee shops that the baristas we interviewed work for are not the main drivers of urban gentrification. Such gentrification is pushed mainly by real estate developers and by local governments seeking to enhance their tax base.

Gentrification, furthermore, is fundamentally a result of larger structural forces such as zoning rules that prohibit multi-unit and mixed-use construction, and government acquiescence to NIMBY resistance to high-rise buildings. These forces limit the supply of housing in walkable urban neighborhoods. In Philadelphia, such neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, Chestnut Hill, Germantown, Society Hill, Mount Airy, Strawberry Mansion and Point Breeze.

To ease residential gentrification, baristas could relocate. But they are low-wage service workers, and their housing options are limited by affordability issues and the shortage of urban neighborhoods – issues that zoning boards, community groups and political leaders have failed to address.

Geoff Moss, Professor of Sociology, Temple University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How the so-called 'free market' is a dangerous illusion


Robert Reich

December 08, 2023

Welcome to the third week of our 10-week inquiry into American capitalism and the common good. Today I want to talk about a central myth of capitalism — one that has prevented a realistic conversation about it: the myth of the “free market.”

FEW IDEAS have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which government “intrudes.”

In this view, your pay simply reflects what you’re worth in the market. If you aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has decided you’re not worth enough. If others rake in billions, the market has decided they must be worth it.

If millions of people are unemployed or have no idea what they’ll earn next week, that’s also the outcome of market forces.

If corporations decide to lay off their workers and shift jobs overseas, or use computers and software to do what their workers did, that’s also just the market doing its thing.

According to this view, whatever we might do to reduce inequality or economic insecurity runs the risk of distorting the market and causing it to be less efficient.

Although the government may need to intervene in the market on occasion — to prevent, say, pollution or unsafe workplaces, or provide public goods such as highways or basic research — these are thought to be exceptions to the general rule that the market knows best.

The prevailing view is so dominant that it is now almost taken for granted. It is taught in almost every course on introductory economics. It has found its way into everyday public discourse. One hears it expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only question left to debate is how much the government should intervene. Conservatives want a smaller government and less intervention in the free market. Liberals want a more activist government that intervenes more in the free market.

BUT THE PREVAILING VIEW, as well as the debate it has spawned, is utterly false.

There can be no “free market” without government. The “free market” does not exist in the wilds beyond the reach of civilization.

Competition in the real wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. As the 17th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it in his book Leviathan (chapter 13),

“[in nature] there is continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules.

Rules create markets, and governments generate the rules.

A market — any market — requires that government make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts.

Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market.” It creates the market.

The rules are neither neutral nor universal, and they are not permanent. Different societies at different times have adopted different rules.

The rules partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values, but also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence them.

Yet the interminable debate over whether the “free market” is better than “government” makes it impossible for us to examine who exercises this power, how they benefit from doing so, and whether such rules need to be altered so that more people benefit from them.

THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT is not unimportant, but the rules for how the market functions have far greater impact on an economy and a society. While it’s useful to debate how much the government should tax and spend, regulate and subsidize, these issues are at the margin of the economy. The rules are the economy.

It is impossible to have a market system without such rules and without the choices that lie behind them.

Those who argue for “less government” are really arguing for a different government — often one that favors them or their patrons.


So-called “deregulation” of the financial sector in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, for example, could more appropriately be described as “re-regulation.” It did not mean less government. It meant a different set of rules.

Those new rules initially allowed Wall Street to speculate on a wide assortment of risky but lucrative bets and permitted big banks to push mortgages onto people who couldn’t afford them.

When the bubble burst in 2008, the government issued rules to protect the assets of the largest banks, subsidize them so they would not go under, and induce them to acquire weaker banks. At the same time, the government enforced other rules that caused millions of people to lose their homes. These were followed by additional rules intended to prevent the banks from engaging in new rounds of risky behavior (although in the view of many experts, these new rules are inadequate).

The critical things to watch out for aren’t the rare big events, such as the 2008 bailout of the Street itself, but the ongoing multitude of small rule changes that continuously alter the economic game.

The bailout of Wall Street created an implicit guarantee that the government would subsidize the biggest banks if they ever got into trouble again. This gave the biggest banks a financial advantage over smaller banks and fueled their subsequent growth and dominance over the entire financial sector — which enhanced their subsequent political power to get rules they wanted and avoid those they did not.

The so-called “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining these rule changes and asking whom they serve. The myth is therefore highly useful to those who do not want such an examination and who don’t want the public to understand how power is exercised and by whom.

THESE UNDERLYING REALITIES are particularly well hidden in an economy where so much of what is owned and traded is becoming intangible and complex.

Rules governing intellectual property, for example, are harder to see than the rules of an older economy in which property took the tangible forms of land, factories, and machinery.

Likewise, monopolies and market power were clearer in the days of giant railroads and oil trusts than they are now, when a Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft can gain dominance over an entire network, platform, or communications system.

At the same time, contracts were simpler to parse when buyers and sellers were on more or less equal footing, and could easily discover what the other party was promising. That was before the advent of complex mortgages, consumer agreements, franchise systems, and employment contracts, all of whose terms are now largely dictated by one party.

Financial obligations were clearer when banking was simpler, and the savings of some were loaned to others who wanted to buy homes or start businesses. In today’s world of elaborate financial instruments, it is sometimes difficult to tell who owes what to whom, or when, or why.

***

Before we can understand the consequences of all of this for why American capitalism has become so rotten, it’s necessary to understand how the market has been reorganized in recent years — what interests have had the most influence on this process and who has gained and who has lost as a result.

In other words, we need to understand how the exercise of power has altered the exercise of economic freedom.

Next Friday, we’ll look at freedom and power.

Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

 

GOP billionaires using dark money groups to 'distance themselves from their own extremism': report

Billionaire conservative megadonors Dick and Liz Uihlein, Image via screengrab/NYT.

Carl Gibson

December 07, 2023

The #1 funder of Republican-aligned causes in the United States is now channeling his money through a series of dark money groups, according to a new report.

On Thursday, the Daily Beast found that billionaire Richard "Dick" Uihlein, of the Illinois-based Uline shipping company, is still funding far-right causes across the US, but is instead doing it through various nonprofit organizations he has connections to in an effort to circumvent disclosure rules. Caroline Ciccone, who is president of the anti-corruption group Accountable.US, said both Uihlein and his wife, Liz Uihlein, are redirecting their largesse to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans

"For years, billionaire conservative megadonors Dick and Liz Uihlein bankrolled the anti-democratic extremist groups that brought us the Jan. 6 insurrection. Now, they’re dumping millions into groups working to abolish abortion access across the country and appear to be purposefully funneling even more through a separate nonprofit to distance themselves from their own extremism," Ciccone said. "But the truth is clear: the Uihleins’ continued funding of the far-right’s most extreme causes is nothing more than a desperate attempt to force an unpopular, radical agenda on Americans everywhere."

POLL:Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

According to campaign finance data compiled by OpenSecrets, Uihlein was the #1 donor to GOP-related politicians and causes in the United States in the 2022 election cycle, spending roughly $90 million (billionaire George Soros was the #1 donor to Democratic causes). The Beast reported that in the 2022 midterms, Uihlein actively donated to groups that promulgated conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, and to groups that sought to challenge the results of the election in the legal system. Many of those donations came from the Ed Uihlein Family Foundation, which spent tens of millions of dollars directly contributed by Dick Uihlein himself.

However, Uihlein has changed his strategy ahead of the 2024 elections. The Beast reported that a dark money group Uihlein is connected to — Restoration of America, and its associated 501(c)(4) political arm, Restoration Action — "hit the gas" in 2022 and raised more than $30 million, an increase of roughly $10 million from 2021. It also increased its spending by roughly $10 million. One of the recipients of Restoration's funding spree was Tea Party Patriots Action, which played a role in the organizing of the initial January 6, 2021 rally. Roughly $22 million of that $30 million came from one anonymous donor, which the Beast reported was "almost certainly" Uihlein.

Uihlein is also reportedly joining forces with conservative megadonors Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society (recently subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' significant undisclosed gifts) and Jeff Yass, an investor who also ranked among the top 5 biggest donors to GOP causes in 2022.

"These grants show how the Uihlein-backed group continues to finance election fraud conspiracy theories," Brendan Fischer, deputy director of the watchdog group Documented, told the Beast.

INDIA

Government admits to have bypassed environment impact assessments for Chardham project

Project was divided into 53 parts each less than 100 kilometres long, because of which it didn't need environmental impact assessment, says Nitin Gadka

By Himanshu Nitnaware

Published: Friday 08 December 2023

 Source: @pushkardhami / X (formerly Twitter)

The Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojayana, under which the Silkyara tunnel where 40 workers were trapped for 17 days was being constructed, was passed without necessary evaluation, as revealed by the Centre’s response to a parliamentary query recently. 

Nitin Gadkari, Union minister of road transport and highways, admitted to have bypassed the environmental impact assessment norms for the civil works comprising improvement of five existing national highways from Tanakpur to Pithoragarh section of Kailas-Mansarovar yatra stretching over a length of 825 kilometres.

The project was divided into 53 independent parts, each having a length less than 100 kilometres with distinct start and end points. 

As per the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), expansion of National Highways more than 100 km involving additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 m on existing alignments and 60 m on re-alignments or by-passes require prior environment clearances (EC).

“There was no requirement for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for these projects,” he said.

Gadkari was answering a parliamentary query raised by Rashtriya Janata Dal MP AD Singh, who asked whether the road project was approved without conducting environmental impact assessment.

The highway minister added that according to the directives of the Supreme Court of India, the MoEFCC has constituted a High Powered Committee (HPC) consisting of representatives from institutes such as Physical Research Laboratory, Wildlife Institute of India, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Central Soil Conservation Research Institute, National Institute of Disaster Management, Forest Research Institute, MoEFCC officials and others.

The aim is to understand the cumulative and independent impact of Chardham Projects on the entire Himalayan valleys and accordingly issue directions to conduct EIA or Rapid EIA, Gadkari said.

Gadkari further explained that on the intervention of application filed by the Union Ministry of Defence, the Supreme Court on December 14, 2021 permitted widening of the three strategically important National Highways, namely Rishikesh-Mana, Rishikesh-Gangotri and Tanakpur-Pithoragarh under Chardham Pariyojana and make it two-laned with a 10 m wide pavement.

The Supreme Court, he added, has set up an “Oversight Committee” to ensure the implementation of the recommendations given in the report of HPC.

“The HPC continues to oversee the implementation of its recommendations in the remaining stretches of Chardham Pariyojana,” he stated.

In whose interest? Close to 2,500 fossil fuel lobbyists present at COP28 climate talks, reveals analysis

Lobbyists outnumber official indigenous representatives by over seven times, says coalition Kick Big Polluters Out


By Seema Prasad
Published: Wednesday 06 December 2023

 Alarmingly, there are more than seven times the number of fossil fuel lobbyists permitted entry to the Dubai talks than official indigenous representatives, the analysis said. Photo: UNclimatechange / Flickr

A new analysis has presented a conflict of interest at the ongoing  28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Dubai, United Arab Emirates — there’s a record attendance of fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate summit.

At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were on the list of provisional participants on the UNFCCC website, found climate movement Kick Big Polluters Out’s in-depth study. The coalition of 450 organisations across the globe called on governments to establish a UNFCCC Accountability Framework to protect against undue influence of polluting interests.

Last year, 636 fossil fuel lobbyists were at COP27, up from 503 at COP26.

---

Read more: Exxon knew: Big Oil’s scientists documented accurate climate predictions since 1970s, 1980s

---

Despite 2023 being the hottest year on record and communities on the frontline bearing the brunt, the lobbyists received more passes than ten countries most affected by climate change combined (1,509), the study found. 

The most climate-vulnerable nations include Somalia (366), Chad (554), Niger (135), Guinea-Bissau (43), Micronesia (26), Tonga (79), Eritrea (7), Sudan (46), Liberia (197), Solomon Islands (56).

Alarmingly, there are more than seven times the number of fossil fuel lobbyists permitted entry to the Dubai talks than official indigenous representatives, the analysis said.

The number of lobbyists was only surpassed by the number of delegates brought by Brazil and the UAE — 3,081 and 4,409 people, respectively. 

One key way that representatives of fossil fuel companies gain access to COP is through trade associations, most of which belong to the Global North. Based in Geneva, the International Emissions Trading Association brought the most number of lobbyists (116),  including oil and gas companies such as Shell, TotalEnergies and Equinor. 

Some of the other trade associations are the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (54), Carbon Capture and Storage Association (28), Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (27), Carbon Market Institute Limited (23) and BusinessEurope (18).

---

Read more: ‘50 years of deception’: California sues five Big Oil companies for lying about climate change

---

Certain countries, too, did not shy away from including fossil fuel giants in their delegation. For instance, TotalEnergies and EDF were brought by France and employees of BP, ENI and ExxonMobil were brought by the European Union.

Condemning this in a statement, Ogunlade Olamide Martins, programme manager of Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, said: “To share seats with the Big Polluters in climate change conversations is to dine with the devil. This unholy matrimony will only endorse ‘conflict of interest’ and further facilitate the silence of honest agitation.” 

Martins added, “COP’s conclusions must be independent of industries’ parasitic influences and must only address the concerns of the vulnerable masses.”

In August 2022, a joint statement by civil society was drafted and submitted to recommend a framework that sets the rules of engagement for Big Oil companies at UN climate Talks. It suggested the following:

• Setting a definition of what constitutes a ‘conflict of interest’
• Setting protocols that comprise the Accountability Framework, including
  i) determining criteria for distinguished types of representatives and non-party stakeholders;
  ii) establishing rules of engagement;
  iii) guiding handling of potential conflict of interest cases across existing representatives or new applicants.
• Establishing conflict-of-interest accountability mechanisms to enforce and monitor the accountability framework.  

---

Read more: Methane: Oil firms downplay greenhouse gas’ emissions, finds DTE analysis

---

Moreover, the climate pledges of Big Oil companies fall short significantly, according to a 2023 assessment of TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor’s climate plans by Oil Change International, a research and advocacy organisation.

In 2023, companies Total, Eni and Equinor announced record profits of $36.2 billion, $14 billion and $28.7 billion, respectively. None of the profits were diverted towards developing renewable energy and were used to primarily increase fossil fuel investment.

It demonstrated they were not meeting the bare minimum requirements of the Paris Agreement, therefore, making their presence at COP28 questionable.

Indigenous people play critical role as 'early warning system' on climate change, says Manitoban at COP28

UN climate summit held day of talks on role of Indigenous peoples in the fight against climate change

Arturo Chang · CBC News · Posted: Dec 06, 2023 

University of Manitoba associate professor Myrle Ballard, right, at a COP28 panel in Dubai. Ballard says it's time Indigenous voices are heard when it comes to finding solutions to climate change. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• X
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Indigenous Manitobans attending the United Nations' climate summit in Dubai say it's about time their voices were heard.

The COP28 climate mega-conference held a full day of talks this week on the role of Indigenous peoples from around the world in the fight against climate change.

Several dozen Indigenous representatives from all across Canada were at the summit, talking about how a warming planet is impacting their communities.

Myrle Ballard, an associate professor with University of Manitoba's faculty of science, participated in a panel on loss and damage caused by the changing climate.

• Hard hit by climate change, Indigenous leaders want strong voice at COP28

Ballard is from Lake St. Martin First Nation, a community devastated by spring flooding in 2011, following the province's decision to intentionally divert water to prevent flooding in Winnipeg. The community was entirely relocated and rebuilt, with evacuees returning home years later. 

"It's Indigenous people's observations that are really critical because … they're the predictors of what's happening in real time, what's happening on the land. They're the early warning system," said Ballard, who is also chief advisor for Indigenous science with Environment and Climate Change Canada.

People are silhouetted against a logo for the COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai. More than 70,000 delegates from all across the world are at the summit, which wraps up next week. (Rafiq Maqbool/The Associated Press)

"A lot of the decisions [on climate change] are based on reactions. So we need to be more preventative and learn from Indigenous peoples with their early warning system. That way, we can prepare for the changes that happen."

Ballard said it's important for all different players, including all levels of government, communities and non-governmental organizations, to listen to and learn from each other to find a climate solution.

• Canada's oil and gas emissions cap is coming — here's what to expect

• Dubai climate talks focus on health as Canadian doctors warn patients already seeing impacts

She hopes Indigenous people are also at the table for those conversations.

"They just dedicated [a day at COP28] to what Indigenous people have to say," she said.

"Having Indigenous people there, I think it's very significant. I would assume and hope that they are being listened to."

'Momentum' to act on climate: Métis Federation

The Red River Métis also sent a group of people to COP28, in partnership with the Canadian delegation. The team is led by JoAnne Remillard, the Manitoba Métis Federation's energy and climate minister.

The federation's housing minister, Will Goodon, has participated in every COP since 2017, except for this one. 

The Manitoba Métis Federation's Will Goodon has participated in every COP since 2017, except for this year's. He says based on what he's hearing, there seems to be real momentum for a change at this year's conference. (Submitted by Will Goodon)

He said based on what he's seeing, there seems to be real momentum toward finding a climate solution this time around.

"Sometimes when you go to these things, they are either a lot of talk about things that we should be doing or we could be doing or we might be doing," he said.

But from what he's heard, "there's a couple of other …  big issues that there was actually decisions being made early in the week, rather than at the 11th hour."

Goodon said there's "a little more seriousness involved" to proceedings this year, including some important discussions on capping greenhouse gas emissions.

More than 70,000 delegates from all across the world are in Dubai for the summit, which wraps up next week.

Advocates for action on the environment have criticized the choice to hold the summit in one of the world's largest oil producers, and voiced concerns about a rise in the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present.

• Record number of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP28 climate talks, analysis shows

• LISTEN
  It's OK to be skeptical about COP28 — just don't ignore it, says climate journalist

Goodon said he understands those criticisms, but said the people responsible for the most emissions must also be part of the climate discussion.

"If the … industries that are perpetuating the emissions and the changes that we see aren't at the table, then it's really hard to do, you know, enforcement," he said.

"It's a little bit of a catch-22, and you're walking a fine line.… It's hard to say what's the best way forward."

COP28 is scheduled to continue until Dec. 12.