Tuesday, October 22, 2024

For Trans People Reliant on Federal Programs, This Election Could Change Everything

Donald Trump’s hostility toward gender-affirming care has thrust trans rights into the center of a contentious election, raising anxiety about future federal support.
October 21, 2024
Source: The 19th


Chauntey Wilson, founder of The Love Diamond Project and president of TransYOUniting, on her work break at Central Outreach Wellness Center, on October 14, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)



Chauntey Wilson, a formerly incarcerated transgender woman, got the health care she needed while Donald Trump was president. She fears others may not be able to if he’s elected to a second term.

Wilson, 45, sought care at a Pittsburgh clinic known for treating LGBTQ+ people soon after she was released from a Pennsylvania state prison in 2018. Growing up in Pittsburgh’s Hill District she faced crushing gender dysphoria and conflict with those who couldn’t understand her identity.

She was housed with men during two prison sentences spanning 16 years — a policy that exposes incarcerated trans women to an increased risk of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. And while there, she couldn’t access gender-affirming surgeries that would bring her body into closer alignment with her gender.

She qualified for Medicaid after she was released and continued the transition she’d started long before her incarceration. The state’s program covered her three surgeries, two of which were performed at Pittsburgh hospitals. Chauntey Wilson poses for a portrait on October 14, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Wilson’s gender-affirming surgeries were covered by Medicaid after she was released from prison. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)

Wilson is now a member of the Pittsburgh LGBTQIA+ Commission and serves in leadership roles at two nonprofits that support trans people: TransYOUniting and The Love Diamond Project. She feels “lucky and blessed” because she found employment and built the life she wanted after suffering for so long.

It’s the kind of outcome that might not be possible for low-income trans people if Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. In a campaign video released last year, Trump vowed to ban federal funding for gender-affirming care as part of a broader plan to restrict access to these health services.

Down-ballot races could influence access, too: Twenty-six states have enacted laws limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. Though Pennsylvania isn’t among them, Republican members of the state House of Representatives have introduced legislation this year proposing legal protection for any parent who won’t consent to this kind of care for their child. Democrats have a one-vote majority in the House, while Republicans control the state Senate.

Those federal or state efforts could run counter to local sanctuary laws. Pittsburgh City Council passed two ordinances last year to shield gender-affirming care providers, recipients and their legal guardians from state or federal limitations. And earlier this month, Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato signed an executive order to extend similar protections to patients and providers.

PublicSource and The 19th spoke with experts, providers, elected officials and people with lived experience to find out how election outcomes — up and down the ballot — might impact gender-affirming care in Pittsburgh and beyond. Some expressed fear as polls show a close race between Trump and the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. Others, including Wilson, warned that the most vulnerable trans and nonbinary people — including those enrolled in Medicaid — would be disproportionately impacted by a federal ban. Nearly all said they were determined to keep serving trans youth and adults, regardless of election results.

“We’ll find a way,” said Ashley Durham, outreach and communications manager for the Hugh Lane Wellness Foundation, a North Side-based human services nonprofit that refers LGBTQ+ people to gender-affirming care providers.
How is gender-affirming care publicly funded?

Gender-affirming care is often associated with surgery, but it describes a range of social, medical and mental health services that support a person’s gender identity.

Many health care groups have endorsed it as life-saving care for trans and nonbinary people, and voiced opposition to government efforts to restrict it. They point to evidence showing it can prevent and treat gender dysphoria — the distress people feel when their bodies or society’s perceptions of them don’t align with their gender.

“I’ve had people come back to appointments and just say, ‘I never knew I could feel this good in my whole life,’” said Dr. Molly Fisher, an Allegheny Health Network primary care doctor who treats trans people at her North Side office.

Some state Medicaid programs cover certain gender-affirming health services because they’re widely considered medically necessary. Pennsylvania’s program covers surgery, hormone therapy, voice or communication therapy and behavioral health. But it doesn’t cover fertility services, according to a 2022 KFF report. Only two of the 41 states that responded to KFF’s survey — Maine and Illinois — reported covering all five services as of July 2021.

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services [DHS] confirmed the report’s description of what the state will and won’t cover. Spokesperson Brandon Cwalina said the department and managed care organizations use the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s guidelines to determine medical necessity for these services. Asked why the state’s program doesn’t cover gender-affirming fertility services, he said state law prohibits Medicaid from paying for infertility therapy “under any circumstances.”

Medicare will pay for surgery, hormone therapy and counseling, though Medicare Advantage plans offered by private companies may determine what’s medically necessary on a case-by-case basis.

And some federally qualified health centers [FQHCs], such as the Squirrel Hill Health Center, offer certain gender-affirming services to people regardless of their ability to pay. These facilities receive state and federal funding to treat uninsured and underinsured patients.

A pamphlet on conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” sits at the front desk on October 8, 2024, at TransYOUniting’s QMNTY Center in East Allegheny, Pennsylvania. (Anastasia Busby/PublicSource)


Trump’s plan to stop gender-affirming care

Trump detailed a plan in February 2023 to stop gender-affirming care. In August, his campaign surrogates doubled down on that plan, which includes: Asking Congress to “permanently stop federal taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or pay for these procedures,” including via Medicare and Medicaid
Signing an executive order instructing federal agencies to “cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age”
Passing “a law prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states”
Declaring that hospitals and other facilities providing hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries “will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicare and Medicaid — and will be terminated from the program”
“Protecting the rights of parents” who won’t consent to gender-affirming care for their children
Directing the U.S. Department of Education to inform states and school districts that they “will be faced with severe consequences,” including civil rights violations, “if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.”

Experts said some of these proposals are rooted in falsehoods: Research shows most trans and nonbinary children don’t undergo surgery, though experts said it’s important to preserve access to those services for those who need them.

And schools aren’t promoting gender transition to students, nor are they sending them to health care facilities to receive surgeries — false claims Trump made at an event hosted by a conservative parent activist group.

“That is patently not happening,” said Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy and associate director of HIV policy at KFF. “Schools are not providing surgeries. Gender-affirming care is a careful, thoughtful process in decision making that happens between young people and their parents and providers.”

But some schools do have policies designed to support the identities of trans and nonbinary students, said Dena Stanley, founder and executive director of TransYOUniting on the North Side. These include using a child’s correct pronouns and allowing them to use bathrooms that align with their identity.

“All of this is fear-mongering, because people don’t understand or know the right information” about what’s happening in schools, said Stanley, who is a trans woman. “They’re out here telling people that these kids are going to get whole bottom surgeries at 9 years old, and that is so not true.”Dena Stanley, executive director of TransYOUniting, dances at the inaugural Rebirth Kiki Ball, an event inspired by the historical Ballroom community, on October 11, 2024 at the Kelly Strayhorn Theater in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Anastasia Busby/PublicSource)

Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to a list of questions asking for details on how his administration would adopt these proposals. But experts and providers described how it might play out.

Trump tried to roll back protections for trans people seeking health coverage when he was president, Dawson said. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, among other characteristics, in federally funded health programs. Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration excluded gender identity from its definition of “sex,” which left trans people vulnerable to discrimination.

“We’re going back to the plain meanings of those terms, which is based on biological sex,” Roger Severino, who directed the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Trump, said in 2019.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of Trump’s rule, so it’s unclear how it would affect trans and nonbinary people should he try again during a second term. (The Biden administration’s definition of sex includes gender identity, sexual orientation and sex characteristics, which extends protections to trans people.)

And Trump’s promise to ask Congress to ban federal funding for gender-affirming care might not have teeth if Republicans don’t perform well in congressional elections.

“What kind of coattails does he have?” asked John Finn, a professor emeritus of government at Wesleyan University who’s studied sanctuary movements. “Do the Senate Republicans take control of the Senate? Do [Republicans] increase their House majority, do they stay with the precarious majority they have or do they conceivably lose?

“All of that would affect the Trump administration’s calculations about whether to proceed through federal legislation.” A more effective approach might be through executive orders and regulations by federal agencies, he added.

Dr. Sheila Ramgopal is taking Trump’s pledge to put pressure on hospitals very seriously.
Dr. Sheila Ramgopal, CEO of Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, is photographed on June 8, 2023, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. The clinic offers gender-affirming services like hormone therapy and surgeries. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)

“Hospitals receive a lot of federal funding, a lot of big grant money,” said Ramgopal, an obstetrician and gynecologist, and the CEO of the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, which accepts Medicaid for a variety of gender-affirming services.

“They could even eliminate people who are paying out of pocket” by threatening those facilities, they added.

Another doctor drew parallels between federal attempts to curtail abortion care and Trump’s promises around gender-affirming care.

Dr. Andrea Fox, an internal medicine specialist, described how the Hyde Amendment keeps providers at FQHCs from helping vulnerable patients — including pregnant refugees — by largely banning the use of federal funds for abortion. The amendment took effect in 1977 and was part of backlash to the Roe v. Wade ruling.

She believes the federal government could adopt similar legislation to ban the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care, which is offered by some FQHCs. But she can’t imagine how it would enforce a ban on care that can include everything from hormone therapy to using a patient’s correct pronouns to “the kind of pictures you have hung” around the office.

“Who knows if they really have a plan?” said Fox, who was the chief medical officer of a local FQHC before leaving her position this year. “Because they say they have a plan for doing all kinds of things, but they don’t.”
Why trans identity is being politicized

Trump and other Republicans have described their rationale for restricting gender-affirming care: preserving the nuclear family and traditional gender roles.

It’s part of a backlash to Obergefell v. Hodges — the landmark Supreme Court ruling that required all states to license marriages between same-sex couples, and recognize marriages lawfully performed out of state, according to Loren Cannon, a philosophy instructor at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt.

Conservatives viewed it as “the tip of a dangerous iceberg,” Cannon wrote in his book exploring the politicization of trans identity. He argues it’s why they’re working to prevent further acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community, whose most vulnerable members are trans.

The strategy led to an explosion of anti-trans bills introduced to state legislatures: 661 bills were under consideration so far this year, up from 143 bills in 2021, according to Trans Legislation Tracker, a research organization. Of those, 181 bills aimed to prohibit gender-affirming care.

Pennsylvania lawmakers have brought at least two of those bills. House Republicans introduced a package of anti-trans bills in March, including one that would grant civil immunity to parents who refuse to consent to gender-affirming care for their child, and another that would prevent a judge hearing a child custody dispute from considering a parent’s refusal to consent to gender-affirming care for their child. The bills were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but have not advanced to the floor for a vote.

Rep. Robert Leadbeter, R-Columbia County, introduced both bills, saying they would protect “freedom of speech and overall parental authority.” His spokesperson didn’t respond when asked why he opposed care that providers say is medically necessary, and if he would introduce future legislation that could affect access to it.

Democratic nominee Harris is serving as vice president under President Joe Biden, whose administration has fought in court to defend or extend discrimination protections for trans individuals.

Cannon said policies aiming to restrict care for trans kids are designed to appeal to a value people can’t disagree with: “We need to protect the children.” In his campaign video, Trump called gender-affirming care “child abuse” and “the chemical, physical and emotional mutilation of our youth.”

That kind of rhetoric “paints the population as deviant, as monstrous, as mentally ill” for pursuing this care. “In fact, it’s the opposite,” said Cannon, who is a trans man. Research shows gender-affirming care can reduce the disproportionate risks trans kids face, including suicidality and becoming victims of violence.

One Pittsburgh lawmaker said this rhetoric has become so toxic that he was accosted for supporting trans kids.

Dusk falls on the Pittsburgh skyline as seen from the North Side on June 6, 2024. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)

After a trans teen and her family alleged they were harassed on the North Side, City Councilor Bobby Wilson worked with three teens to declare Sept. 12, 2022, as “Protect Trans Kids Day” in Pittsburgh. And together with Councilor Barb Warwick and former Councilor Bruce Kraus, he co-sponsored two sanctuary bills protecting access to gender-affirming care in the city, both of which were approved by the all-Democrat panel.

Wilson faced blowback from a constituent, who yelled at him while he was shopping at a farmer’s market in Allegheny Commons Park about a month after Protect Trans Kids Day.

“They told me they knew that I had a daughter and said, ‘What if it was your daughter?’” said Wilson, who was disturbed by the encounter and considered reporting it to police. “Then he said something to the effect of, ‘You’re evil, you’re destroying kids, you’re sick.’”
Do sanctuary cities have the power to flout state and federal law?

More cities and states are joining Pittsburgh by declaring themselves LGBTQ+ sanctuaries, mirroring the movement that refused to cooperate with Trump’s hard-line immigration policies when he was president.

But how powerful are these sanctuaries when they’re up against the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local laws?

It depends on the language of the legislation, said Finn, the Wesleyan professor emeritus who’s written about the constitutionality of sanctuary cities. Some are symbolic declarations with no legal impact. Others directly challenge the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by declaring that local officials won’t enforce or comply with federal law, which could result in lawsuits.

Pittsburgh lawmakers chose a third way: If a state or federal law criminalizes gender-affirming care, city officials will deprioritize its enforcement, according to one of the two sanctuary ordinances.

Pittsburgh City Councilors Barb Warwick, left, and Deb Gross talk during a public hearing on April 10, at the City-County Building. Warwick co-sponsored two sanctuary bills protecting access to gender-affirming care in Pittsburgh. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)

Enforcing it “will be at the bottom of our [priority] list,” Councilor Warwick told PublicSource last year.

Finn said there’s nothing legally wrong with that, but it does mean that city officials have a limited amount of power in protecting residents and non-residents seeking care.

The other ordinance aims to keep gender-affirming care providers and recipients safe from out-of-state prosecution by barring city employees from assisting those investigations. It wouldn’t apply to actions required by Pennsylvania and federal laws, but city officials can “refuse to comply with a request by Ohio or West Virginia to turn over information about gender-affirming care,” Finn said.

Like the city ordinance, Innamorato’s executive order bars county employees from assisting out-of-state investigations seeking to punish those providing or seeking gender-affirming care and reproductive care, including abortions.

Sara Innamorato, then Allegheny County executive-elect, takes questions from reporters following her acceptance speech for the role on November 7, 2023, at Mr. Smalls in Millvale, Pennsylvania. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)

“Health care providers in Allegheny County, we have your back,” Innamorato said in a press release. “ … We trust you to make right decisions with your patients.”

One advocate wants Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, to protect trans people through an executive order, as it’s unlikely the divided state legislature will pass legislation.

“Hey Gov. Shapiro, publicly say you’re making this a sanctuary state for trans people and access to gender-affirming care,” said Naiymah Sanchez, a Philadelphia-based senior organizer at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. She’s a trans woman who connects people with gender-affirming care in the city as part of a personal project called “Our Journeys to Healing.”

At least 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed shield laws protecting access to care, while two have issued executive orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank that tracks policies related to LGBTQ+ people. Pennsylvania isn’t one of them.

Shapiro’s press team didn’t respond when asked if he would issue an executive order. Cwalina, the DHS spokesperson, said his administration “is committed to making sure everyone is protected, feels welcome and can thrive in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

A mural is seen outside of Central Outreach Wellness Center, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, on October 14, 2024. The Wellness Center offers gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery navigation and laser hair removal. (Stephanie Strasburg/PublicSource)
How are patients and providers affected by campaign rhetoric?

Some patients and providers are preparing for the worst as Election Day approaches.

“Our clients are already making decisions about what kind of surgeries they’re getting in anticipation of these federal-level or state-level bans,” said Ramgopal, of the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center.

Several of Ramgopal’s patients have chosen to keep an ovary when getting a hysterectomy — in case they lose access to testosterone therapy and need to prevent the adverse health outcomes that can result from lack of sex hormones.

And if the state or federal government criminalizes providers?

“We literally have a bail fund for me,” added Ramgopal, who also provides abortion care.

Sanchez worries about what this uncertainty will do to young trans people, many of whom are just starting their journeys with gender-affirming care. A recent study in the journal “Nature” found suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth increased as anti-trans laws were introduced from 2018 to 2022.

“I’m tearing up right now because I know what it was like for me to exist as a young person, not even having the language to describe who I was, but knowing in my heart,” she said. “I don’t want anyone to have to go through what I went through.”

At least one young person wants political candidates to remember that trans people, though a small portion of the population, are voters, too.
Ace Blackwell with his friends and roller derby teammates on October 8, 2024 at the Neville Roller Dome on Neville Island in Pennsylvania. (Anastasia Busby/PublicSource)

Ace Blackwell, a trans man, is one of the teens who worked with Councilor Wilson to craft the Protect Trans Kids Day proclamation. His experience with gender dysphoria led to an eating disorder that caused him to miss 114 days of school while in treatment. He was 14 at the time.

Blackwell credits his supportive family, friends and community for his recovery. Now 18, he’ll be voting for Harris.

“Trans health care is just health care,” he said. “So trying to cut funding and restrict people [from] learning about it is setting up so many people to have a significantly worse life,” he added.

Chauntey Wilson said the stakes are highest for trans people who are Black or other people of color, low-income, unemployed or formerly incarcerated — all experiences she can identify with. Without Medicaid coverage or other types of federal or state funding, “this community is going to be lost.”

This story was fact-checked by Simi Kadirgamar.

This article was co-published with PublicSource, an independent nonprofit newsroom serving the Pittsburgh region.

ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate



Venuri Siriwardane is PublicSource’s health and mental health reporter. She can be reached at venuri@publicsource.org or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @venuris.

 

Source: The Guardian



 






For the apotheosis of his entire “poisoning of the blood” campaign, Donald Trump has planned a spectacular extravaganza in Madison Square Garden on 27 October, a week before the election. When JD Vance sings Trump’s fulsome praises to introduce him, his ominous tribute will not inspire comparison to the night in the Garden of 19 May 1962, when Marilyn Monroe sang Happy Birthday, Mr President to John F Kennedy.

Trump’s climactic rally will not be in the spirit of any past presidential event ever held there. His gathering for the great racist replacement theory will be the culmination of his spiraling descent since the Charlottesville rally in 2017 when neo-Nazis chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” “Fine people on both sides,” Trump said then. Now, at his night at the Garden, Trump will revive the memory of the infamous American Nazi mass rally held there on 20 February 1939 through his reflected Hitlerian rhetoric.

In the last week, Trump has pledged to deploy the military against “the enemy within”, domestic opponents he claims are worse than foreign adversaries – those Hitler called “Feind des Volkes”, or “enemy of the people”. Trump has threatened to destroy CBS, ABC and the New York Times. About ABC, after it conducted the debate in which he performed disastrously, he called to “take away their license”. After Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview, having refused his own, he tweeted on 10 October: “TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.” About the Times, he said on 9 October: “Wait until you see what I’m going to do with them.” He has singled out by name journalists for the Times and the New Yorker as “FAKE OBAMA LOVING ‘JOURNALISTS”. At every rally he denounces the “fake news”, a drumbeat for years, echoing Hitler’s pejorative slur, “die Lügenpresse” – “the lying press”.

Trump traveled on 11 October to Aurora, Colorado, where he claimed a Venezuelan gang had seized control, “scum” and “animals” who have “invaded and conquered” and “infected” the town, a description dismissed as false by its Republican mayor. “We have to clean out our country,” said Trump. His language represented the Nazi idea of “Rassenhygiene” – “race cleansing” that required purification, not an academic interest in genetics but a program of eugenics for designating inferior races to be isolated or eliminated.

As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood.”

The former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, retired general Mark Milley, according to Bob Woodward in his new book War, told the veteran journalist: “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump. Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.” Trump had stated that for Milley’s communication with his counterparts in China on January 6 to reassure them that the US military was stable, he deserved “DEATH” – to be executed.

On 14 October, retired general Mike Flynn – Trump’s former national security adviser, whom he pardoned for failing to register as a foreign agent and obstructing justice – was asked at a Christian nationalist rally for Trump whether he would preside over military tribunals in a second Trump term to “not only drain the swamp, but imprison the swamp, and on a few occasions, execute the swamp”. “Believe me,” Flynn replied, “the gates of hell – my hell – will be unleashed.”


Trump has been inevitably drawn to the Garden, in the city that made and unmade him. He is irreversibly entrapped in his endless neurotic syndrome of desperately seeking approval there that he constantly repels and success he inexorably undermines, a cycle of failure, rejection and humiliation. He wants New York to love him unreservedly, but his relationship with the city has been one long unrequited romance. His true love affair has always and only been with himself. When he does not receive the adoration he feels he deserves, he hates New York. Then, he tries to win its love again by performing a disgusting act, which, when he is predictably rejected, triggers his anger once again. And, then, he engages in gestures of infantile defiance, like holding a Nazi-esque rally. Trying to show himself triumphant over the city, he invites its scorn once again, and again, and again. He never comprehends that he is the cause of his continuing narcissistic injuries.

Trump’s rally, through the rhyme of history, will be a rebuke to the greatest campaign speech delivered by Franklin D Roosevelt, which, though given 88 years ago in the Garden on 31 October 1936, rings remarkably contemporary, a speech for “the restoration of American democracy” and its “preservation”.

“We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle,” FDR said. “We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.”

Three years after FDR spoke at the Garden, another rally was held there, on 20 February 1939, under the sponsorship of the German American Bund, raising the slogan of “America First”, to advance the great replacement theory that Jews and other “inferior races” were displacing white Aryans. The Nazis claimed the mantle of true Americanism and Christian nationalism. Swastikas framed a gigantic portrait of George Washington as the backdrop to the stage. From the balcony hung a banner: “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian America.” “Wake up!” shouted the Führer of the Bund, Fritz Kuhn, “you, Aryan, Nordic and Christians, to demand that our government be returned to the people who founded it!”

Gerhard Wilhelm Kunze, the Bund’s public relations director, declared that white supremacy was the essential basis of the nation. “The spirit which opened the west and built our country is the spirit of the militant white man,” he said, citing racial segregation and immigration quotas as its bulwarks. “It has then always been very much American to protect the Aryan character of this nation.”

In 2019, a seven-minute documentary about the Nazi rally of 1939, A Night at the Garden, was nominated for an Academy Award. To promote it, a 30-second TV ad was produced with the tagline: “It Can Happen Here.” The line was a reference to Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, about a populist demagogue defeating FDR and imposing a fascist regime. Lewis’s wife, the famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, a columnist for the New York Herald Tribune, who had reported on the rise of Hitler, pointedly attended the Nazi rally. “I saw an exact duplicate of it in the Berlin Sports Palast in 1931,” she wrote.

When the film distributor of A Night at the Garden sought to buy time for a spot on Fox News, its CEO, Suzanne Scott, rejected it as “not appropriate for our air”. After the 2020 election, during Trump’s ramping up to the January 6 insurrection, she ordered that Fox News suppress factchecking his lies because it was “bad for business”.

Now, in his announcement of his night at the Garden, Trump advertised a clipped version of the replacement theory, declaring that New York was “reeling” from “Kamala’s reckless open-border policies”, “flooding” the city with criminal “illegal migrants”. For nearly a $1m contribution to attend the event, the top tier, donors are promised an “Ultra MAGA Experience”, details to follow.

Trump’s Maga rally will be the first time since the 1939 Nazi rally that the same themes of the replacement theory will echo in the Garden. But his closing argument is more than Nazi cosplay. He cannot help but reveal his deepest desire to be loved and then to fling the middle finger to the city whose unconditional admiration he has sought since he first crossed the Queensboro Bridge.

Trump’s permanent physical move to Palm Beach after his failed coup in 2020 has not transformed him into a contented Florida Man. To the inveterate New Yorker, the Sunshine state is strictly for snowbirds, God’s waiting room for shuffleboarders. Mar-a-Lago, his winter escape, has become his unnatural embittering palace-in-exile. Florida represents disgrace to Trump.

Trump’s emotional journey back to the White House must travel through New York. He has nothing but contempt and indifference for Washington. He despises policy, flaunts his ignorance and detests anyone who has ever tried to temper him, from four-star generals to Republican congressional leaders. He wants the pomp without the circumstance. January 6 played out Trump’s true view of the capital.

Trump plots his night at the Garden as the climax of his comeback tour. He may have been president, but never top of the heap. Roy Cohn could tell him how to skirt the law and ingratiate himself with the mob, but Cohn was not a Virgil to guide his protege to respectability. Trump’s lowlife publicity antics, tutored by Cohn, made him into one of the revolving cast of characters populating tabloid trash. The larger the headline of the sordid story about himself, the bigger Trump’s delusion that kitsch burnished his class. He was always crestfallen when his frolics did not win his admission into the club.

Trump has only been truly comfortable strutting in his old New York, conning and threatening, greasing the palms of the mafia, stiffing his contractors and workers, while trying to buy his way into society affairs. Time and again, the city spat him out. He was ridiculed and reviled. He went bust six times. He defaulted on the Trump Shuttle. The banks denied him loans. He had to sell his yacht named for his daughter, The Princess. His brutish father, who financed his wild ventures, throwing good money after bad, had to buy chips illegally to momentarily float his sinking Atlantic City casino. He dumped two wives. He allegedly sexually assaulted dozens of women. When he tried to lowball Frank Sinatra, an idol, Ol’ Blue Eyes told him, “Go fuck yourself.”

After Trump had plunged in what seemed to be his final bankruptcy, he was rescued by a TV producer, Mark Burnett, who created the reality TV show The Apprentice, which depicted Trump as a business genius reigning over the Manhattan skyline. The sheer fiction was the veneer that enabled his grubby lucrative product placement side deals. His motive for running for president was a branding scam gone haywire.

Now, he has returned to the city on his road to redemption. Yet, so far, he has been held accountable for his vast crimes only in New York. He has been found liable for defamation and sexual assault and termed an adjudicated rapist by the judge in the E Jean Carroll case, and ordered to pay $83.3m in damages plus continuing interest; found liable of widespread financial fraud and ordered to pay $364m for ill-gotten gains plus continuing interest; and convicted of 34 felony counts of financial fraud for hush-money payments, to a porn star and Playboy model with whom he had affairs, in order to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

Once again, he intends to prove himself in the city that never sleeps, the city that will give him another shot at murdering someone on Fifth Avenue and getting away with it. A star is reborn.

These little town blues are melting away
I’m gonna make a brand-new start of it in old New York
And if I can make it there, I’m gonna make it anywhere
It’s up to you, New York, New York

Trump now says that if he loses he will blame the unappreciative Jews – he hasn’t been “treated right” by the Jews and their support for Democrats is a “curse”. But Trump, who has picked up a few Yiddish words, uses them unconsciously like a native New Yorker. On 2 January 2021, he displayed his proficiency in his notorious telephone call with the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which he sought to intimidate him into committing election fraud to switch the state’s voting results.

“So look,” said Trump. “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”

Raffensperger resisted Trump’s strong-arming, the Georgia outcome stood, and four days later Trump incited the assault on the Capitol in a last-ditch effort to thwart the certification of the election: “Hang Mike Pence!” Trump has since been indicted in Georgia for election fraud, a case in legal purgatory until after the 2024 election.

Twice, during his call with Raffensperger, Trump derided the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, who refused to be complicit in Trump’s scheme, by calling him a “schmuck”. Perhaps the word was lost on Trump’s listeners. According to Leo Rosten’s The Joy of Yiddish, it carries several meanings, including “penis” and “a dope, a jerk, a boob, a clumsy bumbling fellow”. Rosten wrote that “few impolite words express comparable contempt”.

Now, New Yorkers can only wonder, what kind of schmuck holds a Nazi-esque rally in Madison Square Garden?






















In the Shadow of King Coal

Source: Dissent



Still from King Coal (Courtesy of Requisite Media)

Writer and director Elaine McMillion Sheldon begins her latest documentary, King Coal, with a funeral rite. A multigenerational, multiracial procession of people in black clothing walks slowly up a country road. All is quiet except for the sound of insects and a steady drum. Who are these mourners? Sheldon lets the mystery linger. But we learn eventually that the solemn rite is for a king—King Coal—or perhaps for the past he represents.

In central Appalachia, where the film takes place, the king’s long reign is coming to an end. The mines aren’t as active as they used to be—and never will be again—but coal’s influence is still palpable. To Sheldon, the daughter of a fourth-generation coal miner, the region is beautiful and restless; a transformation is afoot at the bottom of the mountains. “Papaw always said that every new beginning starts with an end,” she says in voiceover during the funeral.

King Coal depicts a region caught between life and death, past and present. While the coal industry is in terminal decline, its presence is still felt by all who dwell in its shadow. The fossil fuel industry has poisoned the earth and its people, yet it still shapes not just the economy but local people’s identities. Across central Appalachia, counties host coal festivals, beauty pageants crown coal queens, and one town rings in the New Year by dropping a large piece of coal instead of a disco ball. “That’s what we live on top of, that’s the ground. That’s what this town is made of,” a father tells his child.

Underground, the miners “have to control all the elements,” Sheldon says. “Earth, air, fire, water.” If they don’t, they could die. The mine, as Sheldon depicts it, looks like a place where people are not meant to be, where they might unearth something terrible. The miners have become sensitive to death. “Those of us who don’t work underground don’t have these magic powers,” she explains. Magic powers, for a fairy tale kingdom.

The film follows two young girls now growing up in coal country. In school, they learn about the coal industry’s bygone might. Sheldon shows them dancing in a coal yard. They walk through forests of deep green and rich brown, wander the black underground, and capture bright fireflies in their hands. They are setting out on their own adventures, their destinations undetermined.


Before the capitalists arrived to extract the mountains’ timber and coal and organized the people into company towns, “this place was wild,” Sheldon says. Traces of that pre-industrial ferocity remain. The mountains and the rivers have endured, though they are not the same as they were. The people, too, have changed. “For some, the king has provided. For others, he’s stolen. For some, he’s given pride. For others, he’s brought shame,” Sheldon says. She shows us a high school football game in southern West Virginia where the teams honor miners. They aren’t worshiping the king but asserting themselves. They believe the miners’ hard work commands respect.

That conviction has sometimes brought miners into conflict with the king. Midway through the documentary, I recalled the Paint Creek–Cabin Creek Strike of 1912, a flashpoint in the West Virginia mine wars—a subject that the girls in the film study in school. Miners demanded wage increases and recognition of their union. In response to escalating tensions, the governor declared martial law. As historian Steven Stoll describes in Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia, operators of the Paint Creek mine evicted striking workers and their families from their homes. Though the miners appealed, a judge upheld the evictions. “A labor organizer explained that the judge likened the relationship between miner and employer to that of master and servant,” Stoll writes. They became refugees, setting up a tent city nearby. At the Battle of Blair Mountain nine years later, the culminating event of the mine wars, a force assembled by the sheriff in Logan County and backed by coal operators killed at least sixteen miners who’d marched toward Mingo County to protest dangerous work conditions, violence against union members, and martial law. Though the mine wars are long over, they leave a tangible legacy that is visible in King Coal and felt throughout the region. Sometimes the only way to resist a tyrant is to put lives on the line.

On its own, coal is just a rock, but human beings made it an instrument of despotic control. Like many tyrants, King Coal has power over life and death. He has turned the tops of the mountains into moonscapes; parts of Appalachia can almost seem haunted. Coal mining, however, has neither killed the land nor destroyed the people who live on it. In its wake, the land grows wild once again. As of 2023, Katie Myers reports in Grist, Appalachia contains roughly 633,000 acres of unreclaimed and partially reclaimed mine land. The land has suffered, but while it is “ill,” Myers writes, “it is certainly not dead.” Flora and fauna like the rare green salamander have begun to return.

The people, too, are resilient, though years under the thumb of King Coal have worn them down along with the mountains. Over time, Sheldon says, machines replaced men. Jobs grew scarce. Her own family moved around the coalfields seven times in twelve years, she explains, because that is “what the king demanded.” A man’s voiceover says that people in Appalachia know that “if anyone’s going to help them, they’ll have to do it themselves.” The capitalists measured the value of Appalachia by the ton. What if we measured its value by the strength of its people instead?


The story of central Appalachia is one of dispossession, starting with the seizure of Indigenous lands and continuing through the devastation of mining communities today. But no single narrative can explain a place. Appalachia is no less complex than anywhere else in the United States. There is exploitation and abuse, but there is also survival, endurance, and solidarity. In 2018, nearly a century after the Battle of Blair Mountain, West Virginia’s teachers took up the red bandana and marched to demand better conditions for themselves and their schools. Last year, students at West Virginia University protested budget cuts that threatened the institution’s core academic mission, citing the teachers’ strikes and the struggles at Blair Mountain. The people of Appalachia deserve better from the world. They do not wait passively; like the Paint Creek miners, they are demanding more for themselves and the generations still to come.

Geography once defined this place, Sheldon says. Geology then succeeded geography. But “the king could never hold all our dreams,” she adds. “What dreams would the Coal River dream? Who are we without a king?” These questions remain unanswered, but just asking them is an act of hope. A people can survive a cruel king. They might reclaim the commons for themselves and build a democracy where there are no kings at all.

At the end of the film, the funeral returns; embers from a pyre scatter into the night as the people in the procession sing of a king and of those whom he never truly ruled. Then, in the daylight, a young girl dances. A new day commences. As the screen goes dark, Sheldon declares: “If you’re hearing this, seeing this, know: This place knows how to dream.”

Sarah Jones is a senior writer for New York Magazine and the author of Disposable: America’s Contempt for the Underclass, forthcoming from Avid Reader Press. She grew up in southern Appalachia





The 3-Fold Definition of Capitalism: Power, Property, Capital

A different way to understand the economy

By Vlad Bunea
October 21, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image courtesy of Vlad Bunea



For a while I have been talking on this channel about a heterodox definition of capitalism. A definition that does not discuss capitalism to be mainly about free markets, private ownership of the means of production, economic freedom, or supply and demand. My definition is built as an x-ray machine. It’s meant to help you see through the web of lies, deceit, narratives, political speeches, corporate talk, business media talk, marketing ploys and cultural delusions that maintain the dominance of capitalism. This simple definition also wants to focus your attention on the unprecedented, megalomaniacal, humongous destruction of life systems on Earth, made possible by capitalism.

I define capitalism as the unshakable, irreducible, codependent, complementary, synergistic bond between the spheres of property, power, and capital. I call them spheres to suggest dimensionality and complexity. Inside each sphere there is self-contradiction, collusion, inconsistency.

Capitalists primarily use the following tools to operate the deceitful game of economic freedom: the doctrine of proportionality, the doctrine of dispossession, and the doctrine of hierarchies. I call them doctrines because, as some dictionaries say, a doctrine is a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group. These three doctrines (likely I can find more if I drink enough coffee) are fed to us by the system as something that must not be questioned, as something coming from nature, as something absolute.

Capitalism has managed to survive this long on the back of these doctrines that have remained unchallenged for centuries. Let us unbox all of these elements, one by one, and match them with reality.

Property

Property is everything that can be owed by humans, directly or indirectly. Property can be things, land, buildings, ideas, money, promises, shares in a company, and so on. In society, it is largely accepted that property is represented not just by what is owned, but also by the social relationships, the laws, and the rules that come with what is owed. For example, you own your house, meaning it is yours, so it belongs to you. At the same time, your house comes with rules, such us, only you can sell it, only you can decide who lives in it, only you can make changes to it, only you have the right to refuse others to enter your house. These are some of the rights that come with your property.

You also have obligations: to pay tax on your property, to respect building codes, to limit the size of your property by not extending over the property of your neighbour, to maintain its quality so it does not harm others, and so on. Each kind of property comes with rights and obligations.

Power

Power has three elements: (1) the ability to cause something to happen according to your will, (2) the social status that permits you to express this ability, (3) a network of humans that have a common interest. Mind you, this definition is in the context of capitalism, and it is the way in which capitalism understands power.

When the CEO of a car manufacturing company, let us call him Aeron Tusk, wants to build an electric vehicle that uses tomato juice as fuel, he then certainly has the ability to cause that to happen by ordering his factory minions to buy as many tomatoes as they can, design a battery that runs on tomato juice, and launch a marketing campaign for the first vegetarian car in history. Aeron Tusk also has the social status that allows him to do this, which implies the title as CEO, the social recognition he enjoys, the relationships he has with creditors and so on. Aeron Tusk also belongs to networks of humans, namely the shareholders of Tusk Enterprises, and the Friends of Economic Freedom.

Capital

Capital is whatever is used in the production of goods and services, roughly speaking. There is a huge literature discussing what capital is and isn’t, which is beyond my scope here. In my scheme, capital is something different than property. Some property can become capital, for example when you use your personal savings to invest into a startup, or when you use your garage as the assembly line for your startup of AI-powered running shoes. Some property is not capital, such as your house where you live when you do not use it to produce goods and services.

If I work from home for a company, does my home count as capital for that company? One can argue yes, and that’s why you can write off some of your expenses for working from home, if the government allows you to do it. One can also argue no, because that company does not own your home. The lines between property and capital can sometimes be blurry, but we are still talking about two very different elements.

Growth

The eye of the trinity, is what I call growth, also known as the growth imperative or the profit motive. Capitalism has evolved as system that depends on its perpetual expansion. Growth is the core desire of all capitalists. In fact, I would even dare to say that it is not profit that capitalists seek, but this perpetual expansion of their business. There are numerous examples of corporations that have functioned for many years without turning a profit, and still operate fine. This was possible due to the expansion of their market share and their operations.

Growth was born from the desire of some of our ancestors to accumulate wealth without limit. Growth is what motivated kings, lords, and empires. Deep into the soul of capitalism is a desire to climb into the infinite heaven, to bathe into the grace of the divine. Most capitalists do not think like that anymore, yet they maintained the obsession with limitless expansion, while completely eviscerating from their minds questions about morality. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the super rich do not show empathy for 99% of humans, and behave like psychopaths. Growth is an incurable addiction for the super rich, and an unquenched desire for the masses that want to emulate the elites.


The doctrine of proportionality

Property and power communicate through the doctrine of proportionality, which basically says that the more property you have, the more power you have. Power increases in proportion with the size of your property. The most visible illustration of this is in the ownership of corporations that is divided into shares. You have probably heard about shareholder theory, or the Friedman doctrine. This theory says that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Shareholders are the only group of humans responsible for this. How are they responsible? Through the way they exercise the power given by how many shares each shareholder owns.

You see, capitalist corporations are governed on a twisted version of democracy. Each shareholder has as many votes as the number of their eligible shares. Simply because shareholders vote on some decisions for the company, it is widely assumed this is ethical and democratic. It is as if property itself, namely the shares, carry the right of equal free speech, not the humans owning the share. It is as if the human owner behaves as a vehicle for its property. Jeff Bezos owns about 937 million Amazon shares, and because of that he has 937 million votes inside the company. One person with millions of metaphoric voices, millions of votes.

Unlike in political liberal democracy, where each adult citizen has one vote, in capitalist organisation, each share has one vote. The moral foundation of proportionality between property and power is dubious, murky, and feudal.

The doctrine of dispossession

Dispossession is how property is removed from its owner, by legal and illegal means, and turned into capital for the purpose of producing goods and services. We are most familiar with the illegal and immoral means by which property became capital, which are known under the name of colonialism. Some argue that even colonialism itself was in reality quite legal, because those settlers stole that land under the divine mandate of their kings. Back then it was known as the doctrine of discovery.

Dispossession can even be done with the consent of the owner of the property. For example, when a singer-songwriter uploads their song to Spotify, as their own property, that song becomes capital for Spotify because it is used to attract users to the platform, it is used to grow the platform, it is used to make a profit, which is not shared in fairness with the singer songwriter.

Big Tech is also dispossessing us of our personal data and is turning it into capital, every second. You can argue that once you put anything on social media, it no longer belongs to you, because it is in public domain. But is it truly so? Can someone really be deprived of their personal data, even if it is with their consent? How can personal data exist, without the person?

Big Tech has managed a very nifty legal pirouette to convince everybody that they use our property as their capital to produce services that are sold to advertisers for stupendous profit. The doctrine of dispossession has taken many forms in history, and continues to do so. We can barely imagine what the progress of AI can do to our property and person.

The doctrine of hierarchies

Capitalism cannot exist without hierarchies of humans, values, and networks. Power links to capital through the doctrine of hierarchies, which is about the quiet rules of closed doors, secret contracts, secret decisions, non disclosure agreements, obligations to obey the orders of your superiors, exclusive memberships to groups, lobby groups, organisational charts, top-down flow of decisions, top-down power over capital, top-down reward systems, top-down power of influence and importance.

Hierarchies are everywhere. A vast majority of humans accept them as a necessary evil for the good functioning of society. Many even defend hierarchies to the extent of doing harm to themselves, simply because humans do a trade-off in their minds, and quickly jump to the conclusion that hierarchies are the only way to establish relationships in society, the only way to maintain order and efficiency. Hierarchies are often thought to mirror competence and merit. Hierarchies are what the animal kingdom uses to weed out the less fit specimens. It feels easy and natural to accept this reality, doesn’t it?

The natural argument in favor of hierarchies is valid only to the point of natural selection. Beyond that, we have what is known as the human civilization, which on many occasions has proven that humans have elevated themselves above the constraints of natural selection. Creativity, discovery, science, language, all of these are evidence against the natural argument for hierarchies. Many civilizations have managed themselves with flat or no hierarchies.

Why do I Define Capitalism as a Trinity

Capitalism behaves like a religious cult because its foundations operate with elements and doctrines that are supposed to be taken on faith. Even if this model is legal to a large extent, it does not imply that is also moral, democratic, and fair. For over 400 years, this system has created a bunch of very few rich humans, has elevated millions out of poverty but just enough to keep them quiet and content, while it devasted landscapes, ecosystems, it ruined families and lives, it broke promises and bones, it expanded deserts and desolation.

How is The 3-Fold (Trinitarian) Model of Capitalism Useful to You

Let’s look at some examples of what capitalism does.

Talks between Boeing and the machinists union break down as strike nears the one-month mark. How to read this news through the lens of the capitalist trinity? The top shareholders of Boeing are David L. Calhoun, Stanley A. Deal, Theodore Colbert III, Vanguard Group Inc., BlackRock Inc., and Newport Trust Co. The power to run Boeing belongs to these people. The capital used by Boeing is… too complicated to mention. The profit motive forces Boeing to pay workers less. When unions challenge any of the doctrines that prop up the company, they are faced with retaliation.

US government considers a breakup of Google. This is an attempt from the state to reduce the size of property, power, and capital that has accumulated under a corporation. This is not an attempt to phase out the doctrines that run the corporation. Taming capitalists that seek monopoly power is something that some governments have attempted in history, yet none of these attempts have phased out capitalism itself. Only communist countries have shaken the system but only to the extent of replacing one set of owners with another, while maintaining the doctrines.

When you read any economic and business news you can easily notice how all the seven elements of the trinitarian model come to play. The most fundamental questions one should ask are: Who is the actual owner of a property? What is the capital being used? Who has the power? How do the doctrines operate? Finding the answers to these questions is the key to phasing out the system.

Our goal as a society ought to be to dismantle these doctrines and replace them with economic democracy. The growth imperative should be replaced with the wellbeing motive.

Some Conclusions and Thoughts for the Future

Lazy thinkers say that the opposite of capitalism is socialism or communism. No, it’s not. The opposite of capitalism is democracy. Even the USSR or [name your favorite socialist or communist country] used the trinity model to conduct their business, except that the actors in the system were the employees of the state. China, as a mixed system, also uses the trinity. In this way, we can say capitalism is not much different than totalitarian regimes. Capitalism only plays with different actors on more than one stage simultaneously.

Constructing a new economic system that actually serves the needs of all humans must begin with understanding what holds together the old system. Elements of a much better world are already visible at the outskirts of capitalism. Find them, learn them, use them, promote them. This is one among many. Or another one. Or another one. There is even a video…


This article was first posted on Vlad Bunea’s substack.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate



Vlad Bunea

Vlad Bunea is a video essayist, economist, author, and activist based in Toronto. He is a founding member of Degrowth Collective and the International Degrowth Network. His most recent book is The Urban Dictionary of Very Late Capitalism, and his upcoming book is Degrowth of Humans and Sheep.