Saturday, May 18, 2024

ROBERT REICH

America’s second civil war? It’s already begun


Members of far-right groups marching in Charlottesville, Virginia 
, Wikimedia Commons
May 13, 2024

Despite the popularity of the recent movie “Civil War,” we’re not on the verge of a second one. But we are separating into so-called “red” and “blue.” And if Trump is reelected president, he’ll hasten the separation.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade left the issue of abortion to the states, one out of three women of childbearing age now lives in a state that makes it nearly impossible to get an abortion.

And while red states are making it harder than ever to get abortions, they’re making it easier than ever to buy guns.

Red states are also banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education. Florida’s Board of Education recently prohibited public colleges from using state and federal funds for DEI. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a law to require that all state-funded colleges and universities close their DEI offices.

Red states are suppressing votes. In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” have been created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, another fallout from Trump’s big lie.

They’re banning the teaching of America’s history of racism. They’re requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and join sports teams that reflect their sex at birth.

They’re making it harder to protest. More difficult to qualify for unemployment benefits and other forms of public assistance. Harder than ever to form labor unions.

They’re even passing “bounty” laws — enforced not by governments but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits — on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortion to vaccination.

Blue states are moving in the opposite direction. Several, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters.

When Idaho proposed a ban on abortion that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states.

Maryland and Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. California has expanded access to abortion and protected abortion providers from out-of-state legal action.


After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California enacted a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.

Blue states are also coordinating more of their policies. During the pandemic, blue states joined together on policies that red states rejected — such as purchasing agreements for personal protective equipment, strategies for reopening businesses as Covid subsided, even on travel from other states with high levels of Covid.

But as blue and red states separate, what will happen to the poor in red states, disproportionately people of color?

“States’ rights” has always been a cover for racial discrimination and segregation. The poor — both white and people of color — are already especially burdened by anti-abortion legislation because they can’t afford travel to a blue state to get an abortion.

They’re also hurt by the failure of red states to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, by red state de facto segregation in public schools, and by red state measures to suppress votes.

One answer is for Democratic administrations and congresses in Washington to prioritize the needs of the red state poor and make extra efforts to protect the civil and political rights of people of color in red states. Yet the failure of the Senate to muster enough votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, let alone revive the Voting Rights Act, suggests how difficult this will be.

Blue states could spend additional resources on the needs of red state residents, such as Oregon is now doing for people from outside Oregon who seek abortions. And prohibit state funds from being spent in any state that bans abortions or discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.

California already bars anyone on a state payroll (including yours truly, who teaches at Berkeley) from getting reimbursed for travel to states that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.

Where will all this end?

If Trump is elected this November, the separation will become even sharper. When he was president last time, Trump acted as if he was president only of the people who vote for him — overwhelmingly from red states — and not as the president of all of America.

Recall that during his presidency, he supported legislation that hurt voters in blue states — such as his tax law that stopped deductions of state and local taxes from federal income taxes.

More than 4 in 10 voters believe that a second civil war is likely within the next five years, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted April 21-23.

Red zip codes are getting redder and blue zip codes, bluer. Of the nation’s total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties — where a presidential candidate won at least 80 percent of the vote — jumped from 6 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2020.

Surveys show Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. Forty-two percent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil.”

Almost 40 percent would be upset at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposite party. Even before the 2020 election, when asked if violence would be justified if the other party won the election, 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans responded in the affirmative.

We are becoming two Americas — one largely urban, racially and ethnically diverse, and young. The other, largely rural or exurban, white and older.

But rather than civil war, I see a gradual, continuous separation — analogous to unhappily married people who don’t want to go through the trauma of a formal divorce.

America will still be America. But it is fast becoming two versions of America. The open question is the same as faced by couples who separate: Will the two remain civil toward each other?

There's something important about Trump’s trial in NY that’s not being openly talked about


Courtroom illustration depicting former President Donald Trump watching Michael Cohen's testimony

May 16, 2024

There is something important about Trump’s criminal trial in New York that’s not being openly talked about. I don’t mean we’re not getting the facts about what’s happening in Manhattan Superior Court. But something very big is being left out.

The trial has introduced us to a world of moral and ethical loathsomeness in which people use and abuse one another routinely. It’s Trump world.

Consider Stormy Daniels. Porn stars are entitled to do as they wish to make money. But when they extort their clients or boyfriends who are running for public office — demanding large payments in order to stay quiet about their affair — they’re violating public morality. They’re contributing to a society in which every interaction has a potential price.

Last week we heard Daniels’s story, even more detailed and lascivious than expected. But a troubling aspect of her behavior is that when Trump ran for office, she saw a chance to extort money from him. She then “shopped” her account of their sexual liaison, before finally accepting $130,000 to be silenced in the 2016 election’s final critical days.

Or consider Michael Cohen. Powerful people often need “fixers” — assistants that carry out their wishes and protect them from legal or political trouble. But when those fixers arrange payments to keep stories out of the media, they’re treading on morally thin ice.

Cohen didn’t just fix. He boasted of burying Trump’s secrets and spreading Trump’s lies. In his work for Trump, he repeatedly acted illegally and found ways to cover up his actions. After he paid Daniels to keep silent and Trump was elected president, Cohen concocted with Trump a means of being reimbursed that involved falsifying records that disguised the repayment as ordinary legal expenses.

And then there’s David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer. Tabloids are part of a long tradition of American journalism. But when tabloid publishers buy stories to bury them on behalf of powerful people, thereby establishing a kind of bankable account of chits that can be cashed in with the powerful, it violates public morality because it corrupts our democracy.

Two weeks ago, Pecker testified about “catching and killing” stories — buying the exclusive rights to stories, or “catching them,” for the specific goal of ensuring the information never becomes public. That’s the “killing” part. According to people who have worked for him, Pecker mastered this technique — ethics be damned.

Which brings us to Trump himself. I don’t care that he had extramarital affairs. But when a presidential candidate tells his fixer to buy off someone — “Just take care of it” — so the public doesn’t get information before an election about a candidate that they might find relevant to evaluating him, it undermines democracy.

This cast of characters — and there are many, many others like them in Trump world — are loathsome not just because they have violated the law, but because they have contributed to creating a harsh society in which everyone is potentially bought or sold.

It’s a sell-or-tell society, a catch-and-kill society, a just-take-care-of-it society. A society where money and power are the only considerations. Where honor and integrity count for nothing.

I am not naive about how the world works. I’ve spent years in Washington, many of them around powerful people. I have seen the seamy side of American politics and business.

But the people who inhabit Trump world live in a more extreme place — where there are no norms, no standards of decency, no common good. There are only opportunities to make money off others and potential dangers of being ripped off by others.

It’s a place where there are no relationships, only transactions.

I sometimes worry that the daily dismal drone of Trump world — the continuous lies and vindictiveness that issue from Trump and his campaign, the dismissive and derogatory ways he deals with and talks about others, the people who testify at his criminal trial about what they have done for or to him and what he has done for or to them — have a subtly corrosive effect on our own world.

It’s important to remind ourselves that most of the people we know are not like this. That honor and integrity do count. That standards of decency guide most behavior. That relationships matter.

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/.
Bloomberg editorial: Trump’s 'puzzling economic agenda' will make inflation even worse
May 15, 2024
ALTERNET


While facing four criminal indictments, presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has been aggressively campaigning on the economy — especially inflation, which he is blaming incumbent President Joe Biden for. And that messaging may be working: some polls released in May have found Trump with narrow single-digit leads, while others show Biden slightly ahead.

Recent polls in swing states, especially those in the Sun Belt, are showing Trump with an advantage.

But in an editorial published on May 14, Bloomberg News' editorial board warns that Trump's proposals would be terrible for the U.S. economy if he returns to the White House in January 2025.

READ MORE:'Econ 101': Here’s what Trump gets painfully wrong about inflation

"Whoever wins November's election," Bloomberg's editorial board argues, "inflation will present them with an immediate challenge…. It's a bit puzzling, then, that former President Donald Trump's economic agenda seems to be dedicated to raising prices."

Trump's proposals, the editorial board notes, include "tariffs of 60 percent on Chinese-made products and 10 percent on other imports" as well as "devaluing" the U.S. dollar. And Trump has toyed with the idea of a hands-on policy with the U.S. Federal Reserve.

All of this, according to the editorial, is a recipe for increasing "the cost of imported goods and inputs for domestic producers."

"Some caveats are in order," Bloomberg's editorial board explains. "Trump doesn’t always mean what he says…. But what do you get, all else equal, when you add much higher tariffs, a politicized central bank, a deliberately weakened currency and an enormous surge in public borrowing, at a time of already-elevated inflation? It would be best to not find out."

READ MORE: 'Disastrous consequences': Columnist warns this 'destructive' Trump plan could tank economy

High interest rates aren’t going away anytime soon – a business economist explains why



May 03, 2024

The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady at its May 1, 2024, policy meeting, dashing the hopes of potential homebuyers and others who were hoping for a cut. Not only will rates remain at their current level – a 23-year high – for at least another month, there’s little reason to believe the Fed will start tapering until the fall. Indeed, if inflation starts to heat back up, it’s plausible — though at the moment unlikely — that the Fed will consider ratcheting up rates another 25 basis points or so in the coming months.

As recently as a few months ago, investors were betting that 2024 would bring a slew of rate cuts.

But speaking as a business economist, I think it’s clear that the latest economic data discouraged the Fed from easing up as it gathered for its latest policy meeting. There’s no sign of an imminent recession. Employment is still pretty strong, with the U.S. adding 303,000 jobs in March 2024 and 270,000 in February, and the unemployment rate – at 3.8% in March – ticked up only slightly from 3.5% in March 2023. That is simply not a large enough increase to be concerned that high rates are slowing the economy down too abruptly.

While it’s true that inflation-adjusted gross domestic product growth, after posting a remarkable 4.8% annualized increase in the fourth quarter of 2023, slowed significantly to 1.6% in the first quarter of 2024, slower growth is exactly what the Fed has been attempting to engineer by raising interest rates. By controlling demand for good and services, price growth slows. That’s still not a recessionary indication.
The inflation challenge

Getting inflation rates down to the Fed’s 2% target — a number that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell repeated several times during his news conference — has been challenging, to say the least. The Fed began hiking interest rates in early 2022. Initially, it had some success in reducing inflation that had peaked at about 9% that year. Indeed, as Powell said, the reduction in inflation was historically fast, due in part to both rate increases and easing international supply chain disruptions. But since June 2023, when inflation was 3.1%, there’s been little decline. Indeed, consumer price index growth hasn’t fallen below 3% since March 2021.

One of the main reasons inflation has stayed high is that there aren’t enough workers. Economic growth increases labor demand, and labor supply simply hasn’t kept pace. The result is higher wages. With higher wages, firms need to cut costs elsewhere, increase prices, or both, to maintain profitability.

Another important driver of inflation, which Powell took pains to mention, is the rising cost of rent. With higher mortgage rates, the housing market has slowed considerably, and many Americans — especially younger ones — are renting instead of buying. Sustained demand for apartments, combined with increased costs of maintenance and upkeep of rental properties, is pressuring rents upward.
Could hikes be in the future?

The next rate decision, in June, is “unlikely” to bring an increase, Powell said during his news conference. He also indicated said the current regime of high rates should be sufficient to tame inflation.

Indeed, as he noted, new job openings have fallen from a peak of 12.1 million in March 2022 to 8.4 million in March 2024. While that’s still high in absolute terms, it’s a significant decline, which suggests slower labor demand. This should then reduce pressure on wages.

So, what about rate cuts? After all, some observers were expecting rate cuts to begin this summer. Based on the information I’m looking at, that is simply not going to happen. No move will occur until September at the earliest. Until then, expect a sluggish housing market and costly borrowing, but moderating inflation and slow but steady growth.

Christopher Decker, Professor of Economics, University of Nebraska Omaha

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



 

Preying on white fears worked in Georgia in the ’60s −and is working there for Trump today


Lester Maddox is sworn in as governor of Georgia on Jan. 11, 1967. 

In January 1967, after a gubernatorial election that saw neither candidate gain enough votes to win, the Georgia Legislature was faced with a vital decision: the selection of the state’s 75th governor during the height of the Civil Rights Movement.

Legislators chose the candidate who earned the least number of votes and was an ardent segregationist – Democrat Lester Maddox, owner of a chicken restaurant and a perennial candidate.

That transformation of Maddox from racist, eccentric business owner to governor was a historical note amid a backdrop of Southern politics and the region’s resentment of Black political gains. Southern politics was and is replete with colorful characters, hucksters, showmen and demagogues who managed both to shock and engender fierce loyalty among their followers.

Maddox showed that it was politically profitable to play on the fears and anxieties of white people, who were afraid of the political power of Black voters. And what was true in Georgia in the 1960s turns out to be true throughout the South today, as Maddox’s victory based on racism holds lessons for the 2024 presidential election.

To understand the popularity of Donald Trump and the Republican Party in Southern states such as Georgia, it’s crucial to understand the racial divisions that preceded him.

As a civil rights historian, I believe that Trump can be placed among a long line of demagogues who possess the skills needed to tap into the fears and anxieties of a group of people that perceives itself as marginalized, at risk and not in control.

Maddox was one of the first to do so in his successful gubernatorial campaign in 1966.

For ‘the little people’

In his book “The Demagogue’s Playbook,” law professor Eric Posner defined a demagogue as a “charismatic, amoral person who obtains the support of the people through dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and the exploitation of social divisions.”

For Maddox, a Democrat in the era when Southern Democrats were the segregationist party, the social division he could exploit was a rapidly changing South, where political and cultural conventions were turned upside down by the successes of the Civil Rights Movement. No longer was the white race the master of the social order.

During his campaign, Maddox used class warfare to frame his GOP opponent, millionaire textile heir Bo Callaway, as an elite integrationist who was out of touch with white voters – or as Maddox called them, “the little people.”

A white man with a balding head pushes a well-dressed Black man away from a restaurant. Atlanta cafeteria owner Lester Maddox, left, shoves one of several Black men who attempted to integrate his restaurant in 1964. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Maddox used newspaper advertisements for his chicken restaurant, the Pickrick, to rant about political grievances and target his political enemies.

But his primary weapon of choice was the race card. He celebrated his aggression toward Black people by brandishing axe handles as he stood in the doorway of his restaurant in downtown Atlanta.

A crass businessman, Maddox called his axe handles “Pickrick Drumsticks,” which he also sold for US$2 apiece.

Such brazen behavior earned Maddox the admiration of many white Georgians uneasy about the pace of racial integration. His popularity was solidified after he refused to allow Black people to eat in his chicken restaurant, as required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and literally chased them away from his front door.

At one point during the scuffle, Maddox was heard calling to the Black customers, “You no good dirty devils! You dirty Communists! Get the hell out of here or I’ll kill you.”

A white man dressed in a dark suit writes on a piece of wood as another white man watches. Lester Maddox autographs one of the axe handles that he sold for $2 in 1964. Bettmann/Getty Images

When a Georgia court ordered Maddox to obey the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Maddox chose to shut down his business. For him, the issue was a matter of the rights of private property owners.

“This property belongs to me,” Maddox once said, “and I’ll throw out a white one, a black one, a red-headed one or a bald-headed one. It doesn’t make any difference to me.”

Maddox denied being a racist and defended his segregationist views by arguing he believed in separate but equal facilities for white and Black people.

Maddox served only one term as governor because state law prevented any governor serving two successive terms. Instead, he ran for lieutenant governor in 1970 and won.

Georgia on Trump’s mind

Much like Maddox, Trump has tapped into white resentment and anger to gain popularity in a state that he won in 2016 but barely lost in the 2020 presidential election.

In her book “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” American rhetoric historian Jennifer Mercieca explains that Trump is “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”

That is an effective strategy, she argued, especially with a frustrated and polarized electorate.

A crowd of people gather in an auditorium during a rally for Donald Trump. Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Rome, Georgia, on March 9, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Nowhere is that more evident than in Georgia. In a state that saw nearly 5 million voters cast ballots, Joe Biden beat Trump by only 11,779 votes in 2020.

In a campaign stop in Georgia in March 2024, Trump chose to hold a rally in the small city of Rome, located in the district of one of his most die-hard supporters, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Republican U.S. representative.

In 2020, voters in the metro Atlanta area and other larger cities voted for Biden. But in more rural areas such as Rome, voters cast their ballots for Trump – and appear in polls to be giving Trump an edge over Biden in the 2024 race.

One of the major issues is U.S.-Mexico border security and Trump’s views on immigration, which critics have characterized as racist.

During the rally, Trump blamed Biden for the death of 22-year-old Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. An immigrant from Venezuela who entered the U.S. illegally has been arrested and charged with her murder.

“What Joe Biden has done on our border is a crime against humanity and the people of this nation for which he will never be forgiven,” Trump said as he promised to start the largest deportation of immigrants in American history.

Such proposed policies – and thinly veiled racist messages – play well in a political district represented by a far-right extremist.

Much like Maddox did nearly 60 years ago, Trump uses fear of other racial groups to gain support among white voters.

Racial demagoguery in the U.S. was once largely limited to Southern politicians who sometimes used their folksy, homespun charms as champions of the little guy to stoke racial and economic grievances. Though Trump is a wealthy businessman, he is able to convince working-class white voters that he is not only one of them but also a victim, too, of the “liberal elites.”

Donald Trump appears to have successfully translated this approach to the national stage.The Conversation

David Cason, Associate Professor in Honors, University of North Dakota

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


How Trump’s second term would echo Mussolini’s 'fascist strongman leadership': historian



ALTERNET
May 16, 2024

The New Republic has published a series of articles focusing on presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump's plans for a second term if he defeats President Joe Biden in November, and the series' theme is "What American Fascism Would Look Like."

The series tackles a variety of ways in which the writers believe authoritarianism would imperil the United States if Trump returns to the White House in 2025, from immigration policies and the country's borders to public education to severe restrictions on the media. Columbia University professor Kian Tajbakhs, in one of the articles, focuses on the challenges Americans would face managing their day-to-day lives during an authoritarian crackdown.

The series also includes an in-depth essay/think piece by historian/author Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who delves into the history of fascism — including the rise of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, a.k.a. Il Duce, during the 1920s — and emphasizes that Trumpism has many fascist elements.

READ MORE: Trump's plan to 'aggressively' reshape government would create 'army of suck-ups': report

"During his 21 years in power, 18 of them as dictator, Il Duce framed fascism as a revolution of reaction against the left, against liberal democracy, and against any group that threatened the survival of white Christian civilization," Ben-Ghiat explains in her article, published on May 16. "Carrying out a violent destabilization of society in the name of a return to social order and national tradition, fascism pioneered the autocratic formula in use today of disenfranchising and repressing the many to allow the few to exploit the workforce, women's bodies, the environment and the economy."

The historian/author continues, "Trumpism is in this tradition. It started in 2015 as a movement fueled by conservative alarm and white rural rage at a multiracial and progressive America. It continued as an authoritarian presidency envisioned as 'a shock to the system' that unleashed waves of hate crimes against nonwhites and non-Christians. It culminated in the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was a counterrevolutionary operation in the spirit of fascism."

Ben-Ghiat lays out some reasons why she finds Project 2025, Trump allies' blueprint for a second term, so disturbing.

"The fascists believed that you have to destroy to create, and this is what a second Trump Administration would do," Ben-Ghiat warns. "Project 2025 is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name…. The plan promises the abolition of the Department of Education and other federal agencies."

READ MORE: 'Essence of authoritarianism': Expert warns 'Project 2025' would create a Trump 'autocracy'

Ben-Ghiat adds, "The intent here is to destroy the legal and governance cultures of liberal democracy and create new bureaucratic structures, staffed by new politically vetted cadres, to support autocratic rule. So new agencies could appear to manage parents' and family rights, Christian affairs, and other pillars of the new order. The Department of Health and Human Services is poised to have a central role in governance, given the priorities Trumpism places on policing sexuality, weaponizing motherhood, persecuting transgender people and LGBTQ communities, and criminalizing abortion."

The historian notes that Mussolini, during the 1920s, enacted "public security" laws that "justified the arrest of anyone deemed a security threat — meaning anyone who opposed fascism from a liberal democratic or leftist point of view." And she believes that Project 2025 has similar aims.

"Given Trump’s repeated threats to carry out 'retribution' against his enemies," Ben-Ghiat warns, "expect prompt and showy announcements of trials and investigations of the political opposition, members of the January 6 Select Committee, and anyone who sought to hold him accountable….. Trump has worked hard since 2015 to condition the public to see the strongman brand of leadership as the only choice for America."

READ MORE: Mary Trump: Here's why Ivanka and Don Jr. haven't showed up to their father’s 'tawdry' trial

Ruth Ben-Ghiat's full essay for The New Republic is available at this link.
Historian gives ‘Union Joe’ a higher grade than any president since FDR


U.S. President Joe Biden addresses union workers at Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 on September 4, 2023 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
(Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images).
May 17, 2024



Joe Biden has pledged repeatedly to go further than any of his predecessors with his support for U.S. labor rights.

“I intend to be the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history,” Biden said at a White House meeting in September 2021 that brought together ordinary workers, labor leaders and government officials.

He has expressed this intention many times, sometimes clarifying his goals.

For example, in 2023 he said in Chicago that his administration was “making it easier to empower workers by making it easier to join a union.”

Based on my research regarding the history of organized labor in America, I would give Biden an A-minus for his record on workers rights. In my view, the man dubbed “Union Joe” has lived up to the claim, with one notable error.
4 years of sticking to that message

Biden has set many precedents related to organized labor.

In 2021, Biden encouraged workers at an Amazon facility in Alabama to vote in favor of joining a union. In a video message, he asserted that there should be “no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, no anti-union propaganda” from employers toward unionizing efforts.

Although those workers chose not to join the union, this address marked a milestone. No president had ever issued such a statement on behalf of a union during an organizing campaign.

In 2022, Biden used executive orders to improve conditions for work on federal projects, including the use of project labor agreements for federal construction projects, which requires the hiring of unionized workers. His administration also created new rules around pay equity for federal workers.

And a Biden labor task force also released a report laying out 70 policies the government could implement to strengthen labor unions.

In 2023, he became the first president to walk a picket line, which happened during the most effective United Auto Workers strike in decades. The historical record indicates that no prior president had ever even considered taking such an action.

In 2024, the Biden administration has picked up the pace.

In the month of April alone, it banned the noncompete clauses that can stop workers from taking another job in their same line of work if they quit, expanded eligibility for overtime pay to people making up to US$58,656 a year, up from its current cap of $35,568, and pushed pension funds to only invest in companies that adhere to high labor standards. Joe Biden reiterated a campaign promise to support the right to organize unions during a 2021 address that warned against employer intimidation.
Coordinated policy

Under the leadership of Biden’s appointees, the National Labor Relations Board – an independent agency charged with protecting workplace rights – has investigated allegations that Starbucks, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other companies have intimidated their employees to discourage unionization drives.

Biden also supports the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, better known as the PRO Act. Lawmakers have introduced this measure three times since 2019, and the House of Representatives has passed it twice.

Among other things, this bill would impose significant financial penalties on companies that illegally interfere with their employees’ union rights and would speed up the collective bargaining process after workers win a union election. 
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the law that led to the creation of the National Labor Relations Board. AP Photo

Public sentiment


Biden’s administration’s pro-union stance is in tune with public sentiment: Approval ratings for unions are higher than they’ve been in several decades.

About 7 in 10 Americans say they support unions, according to polls commissioned by Gallup and the AFL-CIO.

This public support might be buoyed by current events.

High-profile campaigns among workers employed by Amazon, Starbucks, show business studios, hospitals and automakers have kept unions in the news – regardless of what the White House is doing.

A wide array of workers, from strippers to UPS truck drivers, have made big gains in pay and benefits by flexing their collective power.

Teachers were already going on strike before the COVID-19 pandemic. They have continued to assert their right to do so around the country.
On the other hand …

To be sure, some of Biden’s aspirations to improve the lot of workers remain unfulfilled.

The share of U.S. workers who belong to unions has continued to fall, slipping to 10% in 2023. The buying power of the federal minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 per hour since 2009, has been further eroded due to inflation.

Several states, meanwhile, have weakened their child labor laws even as the numbers of undocumented children and teens holding dangerous jobs that are off-limits for minors rise.

In terms of Biden’s actions, the low point came in 2022, when he used the Railway Labor Act of 1926 to stop the railroad union from striking for better sick leave. Biden officials argued that the economy could not afford a rail shutdown, but political considerations around inflation before the midterm elections probably contributed to the administration’s response.

At the same time, the Biden administration continued working behind the scenes to pressure rail companies to grant the workers their demands, and they largely did. Union leaders credit Biden for helping them get this victory for their workers.
Congress and the Supreme Court

There is only so much any president can do to promote labor rights. As with any other cause, they’re limited by the broader political climate and economic realities.

Given the generally weak track record of his predecessors going back to the late 1940s, I would argue that Biden is the most pro-union president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR, however, had enormous majorities in Congress when he signed into law two measures that safeguard U.S. labor rights to this day: the National Labor Relations Act, which protects the right of private sector workers to organize unions without fear of retaliation, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a minimum wage and made most child labor illegal.

Biden, in contrast, has had to contend with a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate throughout his presidency, and the Republicans gained a slim House majority in the 2022 midterm elections.

He’s also seeking to expand labor rights at a time when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has been consistently ruling against unions.

To be sure, there are several significant labor cases that could potentially land on the Supreme Court’s docket. It will take time to see if unions become more powerful thanks to Biden’s actions and their own organizing, or whether the court continues to erode labor laws.

That’s because, historically, U.S. judges have had at least as much say in determining labor rights as presidents.

Erik Loomis, Professor of History, University of Rhode Island

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Bollywood is playing a large supporting role in India’s elections


Photo by Vinatha Sreeramkumar on Unsplash
woman in yellow dress standing on pink flower field during daytime

April 14, 2024

As the largest electorate in history goes to the polls in India from April 19 to June 1, 2024, political parties are seeking to influence voters’ decisions – through cinema.

The incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, seeking a third term in office under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has deployed the medium of cinema, more than others, to spread the party’s goals and ideas.

The BJP claims India as a Hindu nation. The Modi government openly supports films that promote the BJP ideology through providing tax breaks and removing regulatory restrictions, especially when such films are strategically timed to release in theaters ahead of the elections. “Swatantrya Veer Savarkar,” a biopic on an ardent advocate of a purely Hindu nation, was released a few weeks before polling begins for the 2024 elections.

India’s entertainment film industry is a complex behemoth with an output of about 1,500 releases per year and a base of fans that extends around the world. Fabulously choreographed dance routines, catchy lyrics, memorable dialogue and historical and religious imagery make it a favored medium of communication – even for political parties.

The use of Indian popular cinema for political ends has a long history – one that predates Indian independence. As an art historian, I documented how cinematic imagery was used to produce a heroic aura around political figures in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu in my 2009 book “Celluloid Deities: The Visual Culture of Cinema and Politics in South India.”

The connection between cinema and politics made it the primary vehicle for the lengthy careers of numerous charismatic politicians – some of them screenwriters and film producers, others leading actors and actresses. Since the 1980s, it also set in motion a nationwide trend of using cinematic means to capture the attention of voters.

Mobilizing film fans for electoral campaigns

Viewing movies in theaters is an eventful and enjoyable experience that draws a mass audience. As sociologist Lakshmi Srinivas describes in her 2016 book “House Full,” the release of highly anticipated blockbusters is much like a festival. Most striking is the excitement of audiences as they recite the dialogues, dance to the lyrics and hail stars as they appear on the screen.

In an Indian context, cinema’s impact extends from the movie theater to the street in the form of advertisements, fashion and film music that dominate public spaces. Art historian Shalini Kakar argues that the spectacle of cinema brings forth passionate responses from viewing masses that are much like religious emotion. She discusses case studies of film fans who even worship their favorite celebrities as deities by creating temples to these stars within residential and commercial spaces. These fans conduct religious ceremonies and organize public festivities for their favored stars.

But more often, fans are part of a large and vocal collective. Media theorist S.V. Srinivas found that film fans can make or destroy the careers and lives of stars. If a star decides to venture into politics, these film fans can become active participants in the star’s political campaigns. But if the star does something that the fans disapprove of, they will as easily boycott his films and even destroy the star’s career.

An alignment of cinema and politics

The cinema industry in Tamil Nadu, more than any other in India, has evolved closely with political and social developments in the region since the 1940s. The ideals of Tamil nationalism, a political movement that changed the course of history in Tamil Nadu, were powerfully communicated through the medium of entertainment films. Often, the personalities associated with these films were physically present alongside politicians at party meetings.


Voters’ choices can be influenced by popular films in India.
AP Photo/Ajit Solanki

In my research, I found that the alignment of cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu was helped by the use of identical advertising media. Political parties regularly commissioned advertisers to produce “star images” of politicians. A favored publicity medium of both the cinema industry and party members was the hand-painted plywood cutout. These full-length portraits, 20 feet to 100 feet in height, featured charismatic leaders of Tamil nationalist parties such as M. Karunanidhi, a prolific and influential scriptwriter, and J. Jayalalithaa, a famous film star turned politician.

Though these political portraits were meant to be realistic rather than melodramatic, the style and scale of these portraits resembled the cinematic star image. In this way, they helped to transfer the power of the cinematic star image to the image of the leader.

I argued that these advertisements played an important role in visualizing, and shaping, the identity politics of Tamil nationalism.

The audience for these images numbered in the millions. When these vibrantly colored portraits of film stars and political leaders appeared side by side in public spaces, they soared above the skyline like celestial beings. Often, the images became the focus of adulation. They were feted and garlanded, people danced, burst crackers, cheered and crowded around these images, and posed next to them for photographs.

The charismatic politicians of the Tamil nationalist movement set the trend of combining the sheen of the star image, the power of political portraiture and the divine aura of icons in their advertising.

Cinema’s role in divisive politics

Under Modi’s leadership, three themes emerge in a cluster of films that favor the BJP’s goals and policies and are endorsed by the party: claiming credit for welfare initiatives, instilling Hindu nationalist beliefs in society, and heightening tensions between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority communities.

For example, a film released in 2017, “Toilet: Ek Prem ki Katha,” or “Toilet: A Love Story,” tells the story of a couple whose marriage starts to fall apart over the lack of a toilet within the home. At the beginning of the film, which is an entertaining musical melodrama, viewers are informed that while Mahatma Gandhi championed for a clean environment, it is Modi who is making that dream a reality through budgeting for the construction of toilets nationwide.

Another series of films in the biopic genre showcases the historical legacy of right-wing Hindu nationalist organizations and their leaders. “PM Narendra Modi,” which reminded voters of the prime minister’s rise from poverty, was scheduled for release just before the 2019 elections. But the Election Commission of India, an independent body charged with ensuring free and fair elections, ordered that the film could be released only after the elections.

A third and more troubling genre is politically polarizing films. Drawing on ethnically charged actual events in which communities of Hindus and Muslims clashed, the scripts for these films dramatize highly biased narratives in which Hindus are cast as the victims while Muslims are the villainous perpetrators.

Widely viewed examples of this genre include “Kashmir Files,” which shows the mass exodus of Hindus from the north Indian state of Kashmir in the early 1990s when they were targeted by a pro-Pakistan armed uprising of Kashmiri Muslims. The film, which demonizes Muslims and shows them committing extremely barbaric and cruel acts, is among those publicly endorsed by the prime minister himself.

Film producers and distributors I interviewed for my research were unanimous that it was impossible to accurately predict whether a film would succeed at the box office, as are the results of the elections.

Should the BJP succeed, however, it would be fair to conclude that one element in the hat trick was a clever endorsement of cinema as a vehicle for party propaganda.

Preminda Jacob, Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

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

The number of religious ‘nones’ has soared — but not the number of atheists
Image via Shutterstock.


The Conversation
May 07, 2024

The number of individuals in the United States who do not identify as being part of any religion has grown dramatically in recent years, and “the nones” are now larger than any single religious group. According to the General Social Survey, religiously unaffiliated people represented only about 5% of the U.S. population in the 1970s. This percentage began to increase in the 1990s and is around 30% today.

At first glance, some might assume this means nearly 1 in 3 Americans are atheists, but that’s far from true. Indeed, only about 4% of U.S. adults identify as an atheist.

As sociologists who study religion in the U.S., we wanted to find out more about the gap between these percentages and why some individuals identify as an atheist while other unaffiliated individuals do not.
Many shades of ‘none’

The religiously unaffiliated are a diverse group. Some still attend services, say that they are at least somewhat religious, and express some level of belief in God – although they tend to do these things at a lower rate than individuals who do identify with a religion.

There is even diversity in how religiously unaffiliated individuals identify themselves. When asked their religion on surveys, unaffiliated responses include “agnostic,” “no religion,” “nothing in particular,” “none” and so on.

Only about 17% of religiously unaffiliated people explicitly identify as “atheist” on surveys. For the most part, atheists more actively reject religion and religious concepts than other religiously unaffiliated individuals.

Our recent research examines two questions related to atheism. First, what makes an individual more or less likely to identify as an atheist? Second, what makes someone more or less likely to adopt an atheistic worldview over time?
Beyond belief – and disbelief

Consider the first question: Who’s likely to identify as an atheist. To answer that, we also need to think about what atheism means in the first place.

Not all religious traditions emphasize belief in a deity. In the U.S. context, however, particularly within traditions such as Christianity, atheism is often equated with saying that someone does not believe in God. Yet in one of our surveys we found that among U.S. adults who say “I do not believe in God,” only about half will select “atheist” when asked their religious identity.

In other words, rejecting a belief in God is by no means a sufficient condition for identifying as an atheist. So why do some individuals who do not believe in God identify as an atheist while others do not?

Our study found that there are a number of other social forces associated with the likelihood of an individual identifying as an atheist, above and beyond their disbelief in God – particularly stigma.

Many Americans eye atheists with suspicion and distaste. Notably, some social science surveys in the U.S. include questions asking about how much tolerance people have for atheists alongside questions about tolerance of racists and communists.

This stigma means that being an atheist comes with potential social costs, especially in certain communities. We see this dynamic play out in our data.

Political conservatives, for instance, are less likely to identify as an atheist even if they do not believe in God. Just under 39% of individuals identifying as “extremely conservative” who say they do not believe in God identify as an atheist. This compares with 72% of individuals identifying as “extremely liberal” who say they do not believe in God.

We argue that this likely is a function of greater negative views of atheists in politically conservative circles.
Adopting atheism

Stating that one does not believe in God, however, is the strongest predictor of identifying as an atheist. This leads to our second research question: What factors make someone more or less likely to lose their belief over time?

In a second survey-based study, from a different representative sample of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults, we found that about 6% of individuals who stated that they had some level of belief in God at age 16 moved to saying “I do not believe in God” as an adult.

Who falls into this group is not random.

Our analysis finds, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the stronger an individual’s belief in God was at age 16, the less likely they are to have adopted an atheistic worldview as an adult. For instance, fewer than 2% of individuals who said that “I knew God really existed and I had no doubts about it” as a teenager adopted an atheistic worldview later on. This compares with over 20% of those who said that “I didn’t know whether there was a God and I didn’t believe there was any way to find out” when they were 16.

However, our analysis reveals that several other factors make one more or less likely to adopt an atheistic worldview.

Regardless of how strong their teenage belief was, for instance, Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans were less likely to later identify as an atheist than white individuals. All else being equal, the odds of individuals in these groups adopting an atheistic worldview was about 50% to 75% less than the odds for white individuals. In part, this could be a product of groups that already face stigma related to their race or ethnicity being less able or willing to take on the additional social costs of being an atheist.

On the other hand, we find that adults with more income – regardless of how strong their belief was at 16 – are more likely to adopt the stance that they do not believe in God. Each increase from one income level to another on an 11-point scale increases the odds of adopting an atheistic worldview by about 5%.

This could be a function of income providing a buffer against any stigma associated with holding an atheistic worldview. Having a higher income, for instance, may give an individual the resources needed to avoid social circles and situations where being an atheist might be treated negatively.

However, there may be another explanation. Some social scientists have suggested that both wealth and faith can provide existential security – the confidence that you are not going to face tragedy at any moment – and therefore a higher income reduces the need to believe in supernatural forces in the first place.

Such findings are a powerful reminder that our beliefs, behaviors and identities are not entirely our own, but often shaped by situations and cultures in which we find ourselves.

Christopher P. Scheitle, Associate Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University and Katie Corcoran, Associate Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University

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

Ancient scroll reveals new story of Plato’s death – here’s why you should be suspicious of it

Plato and his students at his school, where he is believed to have been buried. Wikimedia
May 06, 2024

Plato of Athens (429-347BC) may be one of the most famous philosophers of all times. He was the thinker who came up with the “theory of forms” and founded the first academic institution. Yet we know little about his life, such as how he died, or where he might be buried, even.

But spectacular new recent research on papyri from Herculaneum by The Greek Philosophical Schools-project in Italy has provided new answers to those questions.

Carbonised papyrus scrolls, discovered in the 18th century in a Roman villa located near Herculaneum (between Naples and Pompeii) and known as the Villa dei Papyri, contain so much knowledge we have yet to uncover.

The library’s owner appears to have had a great interest in Greek philosophy, especially that of Epicurus, and had collected a substantial library of papyrus scrolls. But reading the 1,800 scrolls has proved quite challenging. While their carbonisation after the eruption of Vesuvius in AD79 preserved the scrolls, they are very brittle and very problematic to unroll.

Among these scrolls is a book by the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (1st century BC) about the history of Greek philosophy, with the title Arrangement of the Philosophers.

Over the last two centuries, various editions of Arrangement of the Philosophers have been published, though great portions of the texts remained illegible. But thanks to hyperspectral imagining it has become possible to distinguish between the black ink and the dark surface of the carbonised papyrus. We can now read approximately 30% more than we previously could.

This newly accessible portion on the history of Plato’s school, the Academy, includes information on the location of Plato’s tomb and his death around 348BC.

From other sources, we had already gathered that Plato was buried somewhere on the grounds of the Academy, a semi-public park-like area outside the city walls of ancient Athens that Plato had bought and where he had his school. From the new edition of the papyrus, it seems that Plato “was buried in the garden near the mouseion”. This garden was a more private part of the Academy, while the mouseion refers to a shrine of the Muses, the goddesses of music and harmony, that Plato himself had erected.

Before people rush out to dig for Plato’s grave, however, a word of caution is in order. As the editor of the text, Italian classicist Kilian Fleischer, admits with academic candour, his reading of the crucial Greek word etaphê (“was buried”) is by no means certain.

Be this as it may, a location near the mouseion would be quite fitting, as music plays an important role in Plato’s philosophy. In his great work The Republic, Plato insists on the place of music in the education of the young.

Listening to the right sort of music and especially to the right rhythms would have a beneficial influence on the soul, he posited. In his final work, The Laws, Plato uses the expression “mousikos anêr”, literally “a man of the Muses”, to refer to a man in possession of an elite education, such of the sort that was promoted by the Academy.

Plato’s fondness for the Muses throws light on Philodemus’s story about the death of Plato, another bit of the papyrus that we can now read much better.

According to Philodemus, at the end of Plato’s life he developed a fever and fell into a delirious state. When a Thracian girl, who was playing the flute – perhaps to comfort him – got the rhythm wrong, Plato appeared to regain consciousness and complained that the girl, because of her barbaric (by which he probably meant non-Greek) background, was unable to get it right.

This exchange was much to the delight of Plato’s companion, who from this brief revival concluded that Plato’s condition was not that critical after all. Even so, he died shortly after.

This is not the only story we have about Plato’s death. According to Diogenes Laertius, author of another history of Greek philosophy entitled Lives of Eminent Philosophers (3rd century AD), Plato died either at a wedding feast, or, alternatively, because of lice.

So, how likely is Philodemus’s particular story, for which we know of no other sources, to be true?

There are reasons to be suspicious. The death of ancient philosophers was meant to reflect their lives and teachings. If not, posterity was quite happy to invent an appropriate deathbed scene.

Thus, this newly discovered story about how Plato, even in his feverish condition, remained a discerning judge of all things musical, a true servant of the Muses, probably tells us more about how the Academy wished to remember its founder than how he actually died.

Bert van den Berg, Lecturer in Classical Languages and Culture, Leiden University

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