Monday, November 04, 2024


With Bible verses and Baptist zeal, Amanda Tyler offers how-to for dismantling Christian nationalism

(RNS) — In her debut book, 'How to End Christian Nationalism,' Tyler presents a roadmap to building multiracial interfaith coalitions and fostering what she calls 'uncomfortable' but necessary conversations — especially for white Christians.


"How to End Christian Nationalism" and author Amanda Tyler. (Courtesy images)
Fiona Murphy
November 1, 2024


(RNS) — On a Saturday morning in 2009, Amanda Tyler was in a grocery store parking lot in Austin, Texas, setting up for Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett’s “neighborhood office hours,” when a large crowd of conservative protesters swarmed the congressman and his staff, waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and holding signs with Rep. Doggett’s face, drawn with devil horns, printed on tombstones and written with messages like “No Socialized Healthcare.”

Tyler, who was Doggett’s district director at the time, recalls this moment as the most intimidating of her career. The same protesters, she said, stalked the congressman for months afterward, attending different events, brandishing assault rifles and shouting about evil.

“It gave me a very close-up experience with the political tactics that could be used and how violent they could be,” Tyler said. “They had distorted the congressman’s face to look like a demon — so dehumanizing — and used symbols that felt like spiritual warfare.”

The event in Texas was a turning point for Tyler, who would a decade later launch the initiative “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” in 2019, and in 2021, become the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, where she advocates for religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

The chaos and hostility of that Saturday morning in Texas, Tyler says, served as a prelude to the political intimidation tactics seen on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Christian nationalism was not the sole cause of explanation for the events of January 6, but it played a vital role in the events leading up to the siege and provided a unifying ideology for many disparate groups that day,” Tyler writes in her debut book.

How to End Christian Nationalism,” published Oct. 22, presents itself as a roadmap to building multiracial interfaith coalitions and fostering what Tyler calls “uncomfortable” but necessary conversations — especially for white Christians. The task of dismantling Christian nationalism, Tyler warns, is generational work.

“It is up to us to confront and call out the destructive ideology that it is and … the damage that it is causing our country.”

In her view, Christian nationalism is not just a theological distortion but a dangerous ideology with real-world consequences. It’s a movement, she argues, that undermines the core principles of both Christianity and democracy. According to Tyler, the ideology promotes the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation, and to be an authentic American, one must subscribe to a conservative, often Protestant, expression of Christianity. She argues that Christian nationalism distorts the gospel of Jesus, which represents to her a message of lovingkindness “beyond recognition.


“Jesus eschewed political power in favor of a ministry aligned with those who were oppressed, marginalized, and otherwise harmed by that power,” Tyler writes. “It (Christian nationalism) points not to Jesus of Nazareth but to the nation, as conceived by a dangerous political ideology, as the object of allegiance.”

Her experiences as a lawyer and activist in Texas and Washington, D.C., buttress an argument that links Christian nationalism to the violent events of Jan. 6, white supremacy and xenophobia. Her religious background, a Baptist from Austin, lends an urgency to the stakes at play.

“It is not a memoir, but there is a lot of my personal story in it,” Tyler told RNS.

As Tyler describes it, her journey to end Christian nationalism began 40 years ago when she “made my profession of faith in the baptismal waters at Riverbend Baptist Church in Austin, Texas,” she writes.

“This is just who I am,” Tyler said. “Learning about Jesus, trying to become a better Christian … This work trying to end Christian nationalism now as a lifelong calling. I didn’t know that at the time, I was only 7, but that started me on this path.”

While her faith was developing, so were her political aspirations. At 6, Tyler recalls studying local city council candidates and pestering her politically inactive parents about who they would vote for. “I was a bit of an outlier, even in my own family,” she said. After hearing a Texas state senator speak at career day, she knew she was destined to become a lawyer.

“I raised my hand and asked him, how does one become a senator?” Tyler said. “He suggested that I go to law school.”

Tyler’s book takes a systematic approach, organized into eight sections titled “Step One” through “Step Eight.” Many end with a reading and reflection exercise that incorporates biblical Scripture. “I pray that it is a hopeful resource for people in growing the movement against Christian nationalism,” Tyler said.

In “Step One,” she introduces a sociological survey designed to help readers orient themselves to Christian nationalism. Some of the questions read, “The federal government should advocate Christian values” and “The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.”

“I hope people see that this is not something that impacts a select part of the population,” Tyler said. “It’s something we all have a stake in.”

Christian nationalism is an ideology that exerts its influence along a spectrum, according to Tyler. She notes instances in American history: from the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was the first law in the United States outlining rules for granting citizenship, to the rapid growth of the Ku Klux Klan to the Red Scare of the 1950s when “In God We Trust” became a national motto.

In essence, Tyler argues that Christian nationalism relates to white supremacy in its promotion of exclusionary visions of power — one through race, the other through religion — and how they often overlap in rhetoric, goals and supporters.

“Since Christian nationalism perpetuates both white supremacy and Christian supremacy,” Tyler writes, “white Christians are still at the top of the caste system created in part by Christian nationalism.”

Tyler’s advocacy is rooted in personal experience and spiritual conviction — but she is not interested in doing this work alone. In January of 2023, she launched the podcast “Respecting Religion” with co-host Holly Hollman. They often discuss the intersection of faith, politics and social justice with guests like Jemar Tisby, the Rev. Jay Augustine and the Rev. Joseph Evans. Tyler emphasizes the need to center people of color in the work of dismantling Christian nationalism.

“There’s a tendency sometimes for white people to think that we have to run and invent everything,” Tyler said. “But there are already groups who are doing this work — whether or not they’ve called it Christian nationalism.”

Frequently addressing her readers using “we,” Tyler suggests that her readers are likely white, Christian and concerned. She avoids labeling individuals as Christian nationalists. Like a few studies she cites, Tyler says she wants to focus on the dynamics of the ideology rather than assigning the label to a group of people.

It isn’t difficult, however, for readers to imagine the contemporary Christian nationalist Tyler neglects to describe: Images of those who stormed the capitol on Jan. 6 were rife with Christian flags and Bible verses. However, in her book, Tyler is clear the messaging has reached far more than the most extreme ends of the spectrum. She warns that many of “our friends, relatives and colleagues” may be “falling prey” to Christian nationalist messaging.

“They need people in their lives — people like you and me,” Tyler writes, “who can help them understand Christian nationalism well enough to reject it.”

This article was produced as part of the RNS/Interfaith America Religion Journalism Fellowship.


Charlie Kirk's TPUSA opens a new front in 'spiritual warfare' on Christian campuses

(RNS) — Since 2020, TPUSA chapters have appeared at over 45 Christian colleges or universities, though only 21 of those chapters appear currently active.


People attend Turning Point USA's Young Women’s Leadership Summit in San Antonio, Texas, in June 2024. (Courtesy photo)

Kathryn Post
November 1, 2024
RNS

(RNS) — Just eight days shy of Election Day, 31-year-old political activist Charlie Kirk addressed a sea of college students in glaring-red MAGA hats at Grand Canyon University, near downtown Phoenix.

Sporting a black T-shirt emblazoned with “xy = man” — a confirmation of where he stands on the GOP’s 2024 litmus test issue — Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA as a college student in 2012, was interrupted as his audience erupted into a rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Afterward, students grabbed up TPUSA swag that said “Republicans are hotter” and “dump your socialist boyfriend.”

“Gen Z is waking up … and voting,” Kirk posted on X later that day. “WATCH.”

Kirk’s fall 2024 “You’re Being Brainwashed” tour is an effort advertised as a way to help students “challenge left-wing indoctrination on college campuses.” TPUSA has already signed up nearly 800 college chapters, but the event at GCU, established by Baptists but now calling itself interdenominational, is part of Kirk’s recent push to populate evangelical Christian campuses with TPUSA chapters.

Since 2020, TPUSA chapters have appeared at more than 45 Christian colleges or universities, at least 35 of them affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the largest association of Christian schools. Only 21 chapters at Christian universities appear currently active, however, with even fewer officially recognized by the universities themselves.



Expanding to Christian colleges, some scholars warn, may divide their campuses. The group, whose website says it plays “offense with a sense of urgency to win America’s culture war,” gained notoriety in 2016 for its professor watchlist, which prompted harassment of faculty at secular as well as Christian colleges, who, TPUSA said, “advance leftist propaganda.”

Kirk has disputed the results of the 2020 election, questioned the qualifications of Black pilots, called George Floyd a “scumbag” and said a Bible verse about stoning gay people to death is “God’s perfect law.”

“The Democrat Party supports everything that God hates,” Kirk said at a recent campaign event he organized for Donald Trump. TPUSA did not respond to requests for comment.

Students at Christian colleges who have launched or joined TPUSA chapters said in interviews this fall that the group helps build community and gives them a place to discuss conservative values

“They say that we are racist and homophobic,” said Payton Stutzman, president of the TPUSA chapter at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, without specifying who “they” referred to. “We’re really not. We really just want to get together and have a good time. The main things we support is a secure border, a good economy, and the freedom to raise our family the way we think is right. We are not here to push anybody’s beliefs down their throats.”


Gary Bruce and Brittany Kemper dance before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks at a Turning Point Action campaign rally, Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2024, in Duluth, Ga. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Sarah Stock, a junior political science major at Vanguard University, a Christian university in Orange County, California, started a TPUSA chapter last fall as an outlet, she said, for political dialogue in what she described as an otherwise apolitical campus.

Last year at a screening of Matt Walsh’s “What Is a Woman,” a film in which Walsh, a controversial podcast host, talks about transgender issues, approximately 100 students attended. Among them was a group of friends who came up to debate the TPUSA members during a Q&A session.

“We all were like, I respect you have this opinion, and it’s great that we can talk about it,” said Stock, who said that after momentarily growing tense, the two groups ended up laughing together. “It was just this mutual understanding that you can love other people and still disagree with them.”

Generally operating in more conservative environments, TPUSA chapters on Christian campuses face less opposition than peers at secular universities but aren’t exempt from controversy. In 2023, Whitworth University put their TPUSA chapter on probation after a free speech event encouraged students to write whatever they wanted on a beach ball, vulgarities included. A year earlier, a now-defunct TPUSA chapter at Calvin University in Grand Rapids drew backlash after advertising a Kanye West-themed event in the wake of West’s antisemitic comments

“The tone of TPUSA social media, and the tone of Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric, to me, it seems there’s a conflict there between kind of that brand, and the more thoughtful political discourse that Christian colleges historically have been working to cultivate,” said Kristin Kobes Du Mez, professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University.

Since TPUSA launched its Faith Initiative in 2021, which partners with churches to host religious conferences, Kirk’s rhetoric about “reclaiming the country for Christ” has grown more bold, earning Kirk the label of Christian nationalist.

“If the church does not rise up at this moment, if the church does not take its proper role, then the country and the republic will be gone as we know it,” Kirk said at a May 2021 TPUSA Faith event at Dream City Church in Phoenix.



Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk speaks before Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives at the Turning Point Believers’ Summit, Friday, July 26, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Kyle Spencer, whose 2024 book “Raising Them Right” chronicles America’s conservative youth movement, is unequivocal in describing Kirk as a Christian nationalist, but political commentator Isaac Willour, a graduate of the Christian Grove City College, called it an “obvious jump” to conflate “those who have a pop interest in TPUSA talking points” with “the actual radical right.” TPUSA, he noted, has distanced itself from radical conservatives such as Nick Fuentes and Morgan Ariel.

“There’s a very easy trap to fall into … that advocating for Christians who meaningfully use any kind of political process, anything that’s not really quietism, is Christian nationalism,” said Willour.

Stock said, “It seems like there’s a high demand for Christian nationalism in the media, but I think there’s a pretty low supply of it.”

Before TPUSA Faith, there was the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty, a think tank located at the evangelical powerhouse Liberty University in Virginia. The brainchild of Kirk and then-Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr., the center, founded in 2019, brought Trump allies such as Eric Metaxas and Rudy Giuliani to campus but ultimately lost steam as Falwell encountered scandal and eventually resigned.

Kirk’s legacy lives on in the school’s TPUSA chapter, which ballooned from 175 members over the summer to over 600, according to Stutzman, crediting the election. (He also touts its pickleball, trivia and Shrek-themed “drain the swamp” movie nights.) Voter registration has been a top priority.

“Right now, Virginia is in a spot where it could flip,” said Stutzman, who was doorknocking for the Trump campaign as he spoke to RNS. “While we can’t endorse anybody, we can support our values, and we can work with college Republicans and other clubs that can endorse people, and we can provide them resources.”

Many TPUSA Christian college chapters have hosted debate watch parties and have plans for election night gatherings. At Liberty, local and federal politicians are expected to attend the chapter’s formal election night gala.

JJ Glaneman, a sophomore at Duquesne University, a Catholic university in Pittsburgh, told RNS he’d also recently been doorknocking for Trump and GOP Senate candidate David McCormick.

Duquesne’s TPUSA chapter is unofficial. After attending TPUSA’s multi-day AmFest event in Arizona in December 2023, Glaneman filed to start a formal chapter in January but was denied by student government, who, Glaneman said, cited TPUSA’s values. Instead, Glaneman has co-founded a chapter of the 132-year-old College Republicans that they use as a “shield,” he said, to host conservative events on campus.

RELATED: With Turning Point Faith, pastors use politics as a church-growth strategy

According to Matt Boedy, a professor of religious rhetoric at the University of North Georgia, TPUSA’s “star-studded” conferences, big-name speakers and viral political debates make TPUSA a more attractive option than a College Republicans chapter.

There’s also TPUSA’s funding. Tax filings from June 2023 showed that TPUSA took in $81.7 million, up from $2.05 million in 2015. Stock said that while her group could apply for “like $50 a year” from Vanguard, “we just get everything from Turning Point.”



Claire Bettag. (Courtesy photo)

Claire Bettag, a senior at St. Mary’s Notre Dame, said the Indiana Catholic school denied her attempt to found a chapter in 2022 due to TPUSA’s messaging on LGBTQ+ issues. Despite the rejection, Bettag has maintained an unofficial TPUSA chapter and a College Republicans club at the school and said TPUSA encouraged her to speak out when St. Mary’s decided to offer open enrollment to applicants “who consistently live and identify as women,” which included transgender students.

“We had met with the school board, the president, the vice president of the college, and we started multiple protests and did a lot of activism to get this policy reversed,” said Bettag. “I have confidence now to speak out about my conservative values that I never thought that I could ever have, and it’s because Turning Point really backed me up along the entire process.”

Saint Mary’s reversed its decision a month later, by which time, Bettag said, her unofficial TPUSA chapter had grown to 75 members.

Catholic University of America has also been hesitant to welcome TPUSA to its campus, as have some Protestant colleges. In 2021, Point Loma Nazarene University, a Church of the Nazarene school in San Diego, and Taylor University, an evangelical school in Upland, Indiana, said the national group conflicts with their mission statements.

The Grand Canyon University event shows that TPUSA’s efforts to enroll Christian students aren’t slowing down, and while Spencer said it’s still a question whether the campaign will translate to votes, Stutzman, at Liberty, said not all gains are political.

“Ultimately, at the end of the day, it’s not just political warfare,” he said. “It’s spiritual warfare that we’re fighting as well.”





Opinion

Once a beneficent King Cyrus, Trump has lately been cast as a biblical avenger

(RNS) — Charismatic 'prophets' have long compared Trump to Bible characters to justify their support for the former president. But the latest iteration, as King Jehu, may signal tacit acceptance of political violence.



Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Lee's Family Forum, Thursday, Oct. 31, 2024, in Henderson, Nev. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Matthew D. Taylor
November 1, 2024


(RNS) — He’s a type of a Cyrus, the ancient Persian emperor. Or a modern Job, defiantly enduring devilish persecutions. He’s Esther, positioned by providence “for such a time as this.” Now he’s a David, a flawed but anointed man of God …

Meet Donald Trump, biblical paragon.

In the past decade, Trump’s Christian theologizers, whom I write about in my new book, have made a hobby of connecting the famously profane, philandering, greedy real estate mogul to biblical heroes and quotable Bible verses. The medley of Bible characters, all mirrors of Trump and his cosmic destiny to lead America, are a pillar of his appeal to evangelical Christians

More recently, however, these biblical allusions and correlations have taken a menacing turn. The latest iteration of this trope is Trump as the obscure Hebrew Bible character King Jehu, an equivalence that may signal tacit acceptance that Trump is bringing in a tide of violence.

RELATED: Lance Wallnau, first to ‘prophesy’ Trump’s presidency, is back to vanquish anti-Trump demons

Almost as soon as Trump entered the political scene in earnest, charismatic prophets, whose evangelical followers believe they literally speak the word of God today, have cast Trump as a figure of biblical prophecy. The original and perhaps still the most iconic such comparison was put forward by Alabama pastor Jeremiah Johnson just a month after Trump became a presidential candidate in 2015, matching Trump with the Persian King Cyrus the Great.

After Cyrus and his Persian armies conquered the Babylonian Empire, Cyrus sent the Israelites, then captive in Babylon, home to rebuild Jerusalem. The prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as God’s “anointed,” noting that the gentile king does not acknowledge the Hebrew deity. In Isaiah’s vision, Cyrus is a secular deliverer, an instrument in the hand of God.

This Cyrus-Trump comparison became one of the key evangelical rationalizations for supporting Trump in 2016: He’s not a believer, or even a good man, but he’s God’s man. Johnson and the handful of other prophets who wagered big on Trump’s win became celebrities in evangelical media. Charismatic prophets such as Lance Wallnau and Paula White then brokered the porcupine-hugging partnership between Trump and his ever-loyal evangelical voter base by casting Trump as the pseudo-biblical, God-selected instrument for restoring American Christianity.

Thus started an avalanche of such prophecies. Incentivized to feed the ravenous demands of his Christian supporters for more and more positive messages about Trump, hundreds — perhaps thousands — of charismatic evangelical prophets have jumped into the pro-Trump prophecy marketplace.

But since Harris became Trump’s opponent, the dominant biblical figure invoked in these prophecy circles has begun to shift away from Cyrus (or Job, Esther or David) and toward Jehu, a chilling model for the post-election season.

Jehu ascended to the throne of Israel after the infamously wicked rule of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, two of the most loathsome characters in the biblical narrative, who had led the people of Israel into worshipping false gods, persecuted the godly Israelite remnant and squared off against the famed prophets Elijah and Elisha.

Jezebel’s name was once a common byword for a scheming woman, but in charismatic circles, where the Hebrew Bible’s imagery looms larger than life, it still has force as a description of sexual promiscuity, abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and other attributes of what they view as malign feminism. Charismatic prophets have, for decades, lamented how the “spirit of Jezebel” has taken over American culture, and Harris, upon becoming the Democratic nominee, was almost instantly tagged with the name.

Jehu, anointed king after Ahab’s death, presides over Jezebel’s annihilation. He demands her servants cast her out of a high tower, then tramples her body with his horse. Wild dogs come and eat her corpse. The message of the story: Jezebel was so profane, so heinous, that all memory of her was eradicated.



“Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu” by Andrea Celesti, late 17th century. (Image courtesy Wikimedia/Creative Commons)

A few weeks ago, tens of thousands of evangelicals gathered on the National Mall for a day of prayer, worship and prophecy to sway the election. At the culmination of 10 hours of politicized religious fervor, one of the most respected charismatic Christian leaders in the country, a California pastor and apostle named Ché Ahn, who this week was photographed at the center of a circle of Christian leaders laying hands on and praying over Trump, got up to declare the will of God: “Donald Trump is a type of Jehu, and Kamala Harris is a type of Jezebel. As you know, Jehu cast out Jezebel. … I decree in Jesus’ mighty name, and I decree it by faith that Trump will win on November the 5th, he will be our 47th president, and Kamala Harris will be cast out, and she will lose.”


RELATED: Lance Wallnau, first to ‘prophesy’ Trump’s presidency, is back to vanquish anti-Trump demons

Linking the vice president — herself a Baptist Christian — to Jezebel in our political violence-charged moment verges on a threat on her life.

Another provocation came as Trump gathered with his National Faith Advisory Board, his formal circle of evangelical advisers, on Oct. 25, and Messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, author of bestselling books about prophecy, uttered this pronouncement over Trump from the stage:

President Trump… God called you to walk according to the template of Jehu, a warrior king. He called Jehu to make his nation great again. Jehu came to the capital city with an agenda to drain the swamp … If (God) should now bring you to the height of power, it will be for his glory. It will be the last act and maybe America’s last chance of redemption.

Cahn and the other prophets employing this image are not merely noting interesting parallels between Trump and Jehu. Rather, they are directing Trump to operate according to the template of Jehu, a biblical script that must be fulfilled.

Note, for instance, how Jehu “drained the swamp” of Israel, a story related in the Bible’s second Book of Kings. The execution of Jezebel pales in comparison. After Jezebel’s defenestration, Jehu goes on a rampage, slaughtering all of Ahab and Jezebel’s children, piling up their heads at the city gates. He goes on to murder hundreds of Israelite citizens, including religious leaders who backed Jezebel. One of the most brutal and vindictive scenes in the Bible, Jehu’s vengeance is being offered as the divinely ordained template for a second Trump term.

PODCAST: The peril radicalizing some evangelicals goes beyond Christian nationalism

We might dismiss the comparisons to Jehu as metaphor if we had not listened to Trump’s recent rally speeches. These biblical citations echo Trump’s own campaign rhetoric, which itself has taken a more vengeful, violent turn. He launched his 2024 campaign by declaring, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.” He’s closing it with promises to eradicate “the enemy within” and calling his American opponents “vermin.”

Like Jehu’s rampage against the old regime, Trump promises to purge the government and society (with violence if necessary) of the malign forces his people hate and fear.

These biblical invocations reveal the accommodations Christians have made to embrace a populist authoritarian vulgarian. As the sourcebook for all truth and guidance in evangelical belief, the Bible shapes evangelical Christians’ imaginations. Casting Trump as a Jehu creates theological permission for Christians to embrace Trump’s promised violence.

If he wins in this election, the Jehu image tells Trump’s Christian supporters that some real-world violence may be needed to purge America of her demons. If he loses, particularly to Kamala Harris, the Jehu template prescribes vengeance and violence until the Harris regime is annihilated.


(Matthew D. Taylor is a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies in Baltimore and is the author of “The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

 


The Dialectics of Wealth and Poverty



Prabhat Patnaik 



There is a lacuna in the 2024 Economics Nobel Prize winners looking at poverty as arising from an absence of development rather than being a dialectical accompaniment of growth itself.

This year’s Nobel Prize in economics (the Riksbank Prize to be more precise) has been awarded to three US-based economists for their research into what promotes or hinders the growth of wealth among nations; and they assign a crucial role to institutions, arguing that Western institutions, like electoral democracy, are conducive to growth. Where colonialism led to the promotion of what they call “inclusive institutions” such as in settler colonies, growth flourished, but elsewhere in the colonial empire, where colonialism set up “extractive institutions”, they turned out to be harmful for growth.

Their work has aroused much criticism. Some have argued that their argument lacks substance: the growth-success of East Asia is accompanied by a lack of Western-style democracy, and of a corruption-free environment; indeed, corruption characterised the Western countries in their period of high growth.

Others have argued that the contrast between the colonies of settlement and other colonies can be attributed to the former receiving as immigrants the “kith and kin” of Western populations. Still others have been critical of the authors’ apotheosising Western institutions and of their being silent on the extreme oppression unleashed by colonialism.

Our purpose here is not to discuss these authors’ arguments but to underscore a basic lacuna in their very perception of growth and under-development, a lacuna that characterises the perception of even their critics, no matter how right these critics may otherwise be. This lacuna consists in their looking at poverty as arising from an absence of development rather than being a dialectical accompaniment of growth itself. The picture they implicitly subscribe to is of a race, where some countries with good (“inclusive”) institutions moved ahead while others with bad (“extractive”) institutions stayed behind.

What this picture misses is that the staying behind of some is because the others moved ahead, that capitalist growth produces poverty. The late Andre Gunder Frank had coined a phrase to describe this phenomenon: the development of under-development, which emphasised that under-development was not lack of development but itself a specific form of development that accompanied what we generally recognise as “development”. There is a complete absence of recognition of the dialectics between development and under-development or between the growth of wealth at one pole and poverty at another in the argument of the awardees of the Riksbank Prize.

The basic reason for this dialectics of the growth of wealth accompanying the growth of poverty, and its international counterpart, namely, the development of some countries accompanying the under-development of others lies in the following: capitalist growth is necessarily accompanied by a process of primitive accumulation of capital, entailing the expropriation and hence impoverishment of a mass of petty producers; but the number of persons engaged within the capitalist sector, those whom it assimilates as workers directly, are just a fraction of those impoverished.

The absolute numbers of the victims of primitive accumulation of capital who remain “outside the system” keep increasing as capital accumulation proceeds; or, if their absolute numbers do not increase but either remain constant or decline, then the extent of poverty increases among them. But a decline in both, the numbers impoverished by the system but remaining outside of it, and the extent of poverty of such persons, is ruled out by the fact that primitive accumulation is a ceaseless process.

It is this phenomenon which explains why the accumulation of wealth at one pole is simultaneously accompanied by the growth of poverty at another. The perception of this phenomenon, however, is typically obscured by the absence of a comprehensive vision of the totality of the accumulation process; attention is focussed only on a particular part of it, which gives an erroneous impression.

In the course of the long boom of capitalism, stretching from the mid-19th century right until the First World War, when capitalism consolidated itself as a global system, this dialectic of wealth and poverty worked as follows. There was a spread of capitalism from Britain to continental Europe and further to the temperate regions of European settlement, like Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The mechanism for this was a diffusion of industry to these areas of settler colonialism, made possible by Britain not only keeping its own market open to imports from these regions, but additionally exporting capital to them to accompany the massive out-migration from Britain and the rest of Europe to these regions.

The scale of European migration was estimated to be at least 50 million between the end of the Napoleonic war and the First World War. Those who migrated, dispossessed the local populations of their land; those of them who did not die fighting, or from the new diseases to which they were now exposed, were herded into “reservations”. The migration from Britain alone was so large that almost half the natural increase in Britain’s population each year, is estimated to have left its shores for the “New World” during this period.

Since the British market was open to both primary sector and industrial exports from these newly-industrialising countries of settlement and in addition Britain also made capital exports to these same countries, it ran up large balance of payments deficits vis-a-vis them.

Besides, Britain’s import surplus from these regions would have normally caused some de-industrialisation in the British economy creating unemployment and generating pressures to protect the British market against imported goods. This was averted because British goods, including above all cotton textiles that had spearheaded the Industrial Revolution, and that were being produced far in excess of the needs of its own domestic market, were exported to its tropical colonies; Eric Hobsbawm refers to Britain’s increasingly selling in the (tropical) colonies what it could not at home, as a “flight to the colonies”. Such exports caused in turn de-industrialisation in these colonies where the traditional artisans and craftsmen, above all spinners and weavers, lost their occupations and were thrown onto the land causing an increase in rents, a decline in wages, and a rise in mass poverty.

Britain’s balance of payments deficits vis-à-vis the “newly industrialising countries” of that period, were covered substantially by two items it earned from the tropical colonies: one was the de-industrialising exports to these colonies referred to above. The other was the drain of wealth, namely one-way transfers, from these colonies to Britain: the entire annual export surplus earnings of countries like India were siphoned off by Britain without any quid pro quo and helped to pay for Britain’s deficit vis-à-vis its settler colonies and other “new industrialisers”.

This system worked because these tropical colonies had a merchandise export surplus vis-à-vis the European Continent, the New World as well as Japan. India’s massive merchandise export surplus with these countries, the second largest in the world for many decades, arose from its ability to supply the primary commodities they required for their industrialisation. These export surplus earnings were entirely appropriated gratis by Britain to pay for its own deficit vis-à-vis the “New World”. It was gratis because Britain ‘paid’ the peasantry for their export goods out of their own taxes; this was perhaps the most important source of generating poverty in the tropical colonies.

The growth of wealth in the settler colonies and elsewhere during what Hobsbawm calls the “long nineteenth century” (stretching up to the First World War) had as its counterpart the growth of poverty, including periodic famines, in the tropical colonies which were colonies of conquest (as distinct from colonies of settlement).

Lest it be thought that countries like India were always as poor as they were at the time of Independence, an estimate by Shireen Moosvi, the economic historian, is worth citing here. She estimates the per capita income of Mughal India from the revenue figures given by Abul Fazl for 1575 and compares it with the per capita income figure provided by S Subramonian for the whole of India for 1910, and finds the latter to be lower than the former in real terms.

The spread of industrial capitalism in the long 19th century was made possible by sucking out a part of the surplus from tropical colonies; the market access provided to the “new industrialisers” by Britain had as its counterpart the encroachment by Britain into the markets of its tropical colonies. Both these were part of a process of primitive accumulation of capital which produced modern mass poverty in these colonies; but the beneficiaries of this primitive accumulation of capital were the temperate regions of European settlement which witnessed a massive increase in their wealth.

The accumulation of wealth and the accumulation of poverty were thus dialectically related. But bourgeois economics would never admit this fact.

Prabhat Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views are personal.

 

2025 African Union Polls: A Contest of Prestige, Not Continental Vision



Nicholas Mwangi 




The elections for African Union Commission Chairperson are set for February 2025, yet it seems that candidates’ are more focused on the possible symbolic victory rather than a chance to build continental unity and challenge western dominance.


With the February 2025 election for the African Union (AU) Commission Chairperson just four months away, momentum has been building among candidates vying to succeed outgoing Chairperson and former PM of Chad, Moussa Faki Mahamat, who is stepping down after two terms. The candidates for the upcoming race are from Djibouti, Kenya, Madagascar, and Mauritius. The stakes are high as Africa faces critical issues that require visionary leadership, but the campaign dynamics are also highlighting divisions that historically continue to plague the AU in the run up to every election.

The AU, established in 2002 to replace the Organization of African Unity (OAU), was founded with a mission of strengthening integration, self-determination, and cooperation across Africa. Today, its institutions like the AU Commission and the Pan-African Parliament are meant to promote policy across economic growth, political stability, and conflict resolution.

While not new, when it comes to these elections, the current campaigns appear to focus more on national pride and regional dominance. Winning the AU Commission Chairperson role has become an empty symbolic victory for the candidate’s country, often driven by the desire for regional influence rather than a robust plan to concretely address Africa’s pressing issues that are systematic alongside new emerging problems.

Kenya’s former Prime Minister, who leads the country’s opposition party, has emerged as a frontrunner after receiving endorsement from the East African Community’s (EAC) in Nairobi in an event spearheaded by President William Ruto. This backing places him as East Africa’s candidate of choice, poised to bring the region’s interests to the AU’s center stage. Kenya has invested in AU leadership bids before. In 2017, Kenya’s candidate Amina Mohamed was highly publicized and backed with significant resources, yet ultimately lost to the outgoing Moussa Faki. This setback was partly attributed to Kenya’s historically complex relationships with its neighbors and the Francophone bloc’s strategic unity, which has been seen as less cooperative with East Africa.

Meanwhile, Djibouti’s candidate, Mahmoud Ali Youssef, Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2005 is also gathering momentum, especially after the endorsement by Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and possibly Francophone countries. Colonial and linguistic affiliations remain deeply influential, with Francophone and Anglophone countries often voting along these lines. However, the Sahel region’s recent political shifts, where Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali have left the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), has cast uncertainty on how the Francophone bloc might align in this AU election.

Africa’s challenges demand an alternative vision.

Given that 60% of the population of the African continent is under 25 years and many countries like Congo, Angola, Kenya, Ghana, and South Africa are abundant raw materials, AU leadership should prioritize visionary policies that unleash the continent’s economic potential and tackle its pressing issues. Africa’s Agenda 2063, launched in 2015, aspires to create a self-determined, prosperous Africa. However, progress has been slow, and many feel that the agenda remains more symbolic than actionable. Although calls for continental unity, visa removal, and trade freedom feature prominently in the current race, historically these campaign promises can become just populist rhetoric, as practical implementation has repeatedly stalled and for various reasons.

Critics argue that the AU itself has also become detached from grassroots issues, focusing on corporate-style, exclusive meetings that lack input from everyday Africans on important issues like health, education, and security. The AU’s decision-making process has increasingly become an echo chamber for African elites, promoting a culture of political clout and regional rivalry rather than collective advancement of the continent. In fact, a core requirement is that candidates must have previously served as presidents, prime ministers, or foreign ministers.

This detachment can also be seen in the context of the recent popular anti-imperialist sentiments in the Sahel. The AU’s dependence on financial and political support from Western powers and institutions like the IMF and World Bank has led to criticisms of it as an extension of neo-colonial influence rather than a body fully committed to African sovereignty. This reliance often constrains the AU’s policies, especially when aligning with Western interests means sidelining the voices of African citizens pushing for a more autonomous and assertive continental agenda.

One activist from the social movements in Kenya told Peoples Dispatch,” The African Union’s dependence on foreign funding, particularly from the European Union and the United States, restricts its ability to adopt policies that truly reflect African interests. When you’re reliant on imperialist powers for support, pursuing independent, progressive policies becomes nearly impossible. As Thomas Sankara said, ‘Who feeds you controls you.’”

The activist stated that, “The AU’s endorsement of neoliberal economic policies reflects this compromise. Instead of promoting self-reliant, people-centered development, it pushes for foreign investment, privatization, and market liberalization, aligning itself with global capital rather than the welfare of African people.”

“Its historical reluctance to support anti-imperialist movements shows the AU’s alignment with, or at best, passive permission of imperialist interests. From Western military bases to corporate exploitation, the AU remains silent or compliant. Many African heads of state involved in the AU benefit directly from Western alliances, using these relationships to secure power domestically. As a result, the AU prioritizes stability for the elite rather than progressive change for the many.”

As the AU Commission Chairperson race continues, we are left wondering if the next leader will bring about a substantive shift toward Africa’s true strategic interests, challenge neo-colonial and imperialist interests, and transcend regional rivalries, or simply continue to perpetuate the AU’s symbolic role in global politics. February’s election should mark a shift and not another chapter of continued missed opportunities for Africa’s future.

Nicholas Mwangi is a member of the Ukombozi Library in Kenya.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

‘Both Harris and Trump Want US Hegemony to Continue’


Abdul Rahman 




Both the leading Democratic and Republican candidates have almost identical agendas of promoting US imperialist interests but equally fail to take note of significant shifts in global politics, says Prabir Purkayastha.

On November 5, the people of the United States will head to the polls to elect their next president and legislators. The two leading contenders in the presidential race, Donald Trump from the Republican party and Kamala Harris from the Democratic Party are neck and neck in the majority of opinion polls so far, generating increased speculation on what the outcome will be and what impact their policies may have on the world.

With regards to South Asia, historically, the US has maintained relationships of a different character with countries in the region, and these relationships have rarely been impacted by a particular electoral outcome. Nevertheless, leaders and analysts in the region have attempted to calculate which particular party or candidate will be better for their foreign policy objectives.

In India, experts are divided. While Harris’ Indian roots have appealed to a large number of them, the current prime minister in India, Narendra Modi and his Hindu supremacist, ultra-right party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seem to have greater bonhomie with Trump due to their common conservative beliefs. During the last election campaigns in 2019 Modi was even accused of canvassing for Trump during his visit to the country. Donald Trump made a historic visit to India in 2020 and was received with a massive ‘Namaste Trump’ rally at a cricket stadium.

Nevertheless, their shared conservative beliefs do not necessarily translate to common ground on policies which impact the US-India relationship, such as trade, immigration and on geopolitical positions. And despite Trump announcing his administration would “strengthen our greater partnership with India” in a post on X, Trump’s high tariff policies would not benefit India, whose biggest trading partner is the United States. Additionally, in 2019, Trump removed India’s status in the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program which provides favorable trade conditions for certain items from certain developing nations. The GSP program then expired under Trump in 2020. Others seem to agree, claiming that if Trump emerges victorious it may give India more space and standing on geopolitical issues whereas a Harris administration would be better on issues of trade and immigration.

The situation is similar with most other countries in the region. Analysts from both Pakistan and Bangladesh note that Trump’s focus on domestic politics and his vocal pledge to turn away from foreign conflicts may be advantageous for their countries.

Speaking to Peoples Dispatch, Sharif Shamshir from the Workers Party of Bangladesh (WPB) claims that Democratic administration led by Joe Biden and Harris had been supportive to regime change forces in Bangladesh, referring to the recent resignation of prime minister Sheikh Hasina and formation of an interim administration under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus.

Shamshir claims that Yunus has close relations with Democratic party leadership which refused to criticize the violence and oppression of the opposition after Hasina’s ouster. Meanwhile, Trump condemned the violence against Hindus and other minorities in his post on Diwali on X, which according to the WPB activist, was largely a bid to court Hindu voters in the US. Indian Americans are the second largest immigrant community only after Mexican Americans, and there are some 2.6 million Indian Americans eligible to vote in Tuesday’s election.

Shamshir believes that, there is a possibility that a future Trump administration, mostly because of its stated focus on domestic issues, may not be interested in Bangladesh’s internal politics as much as the Biden administration has been.

“The difference is only in style”

However, the Left in the region broadly has a consensus over the fact that the US presidential election is ultimately a race without much meaning for the rest of the world. They particularly highlight the bipartisan consensus in the US on continuing policies which serve the imperialist interests of maintaining its hegemony over world affairs. They have noted that differences between Trump and Harris are superficial at most.

Prabir Purkayastha, editor in chief of the NewsClick, told Peoples Dispatch that whether it is Trump or Harris they “want the US hegemony over the world to continue” and they will never compromise on the basic objectives of the US foreign policy in West Asia, Russia, and China. They will neither let go of their so-called “rules based order” and continue to unilaterally violate and misuse international institutions.

Taimur Rahman of Pakistan’s Mazdoor Kisan Party concurs. He says that both the major candidates in the US elections, despite minor differences, have similar approaches to most of the major problems in world politics. Citing the example of “bipartisan consensus” over Palestine, Taimur says, “the people of the world can only conclude that on the most vital questions of world politics there is hardly any meaningful difference between the two candidates.”

Bappa Sinha, an Indian analyst, also agrees with Prabir’s point. “There seems to be a very high level of policy continuity between Democratic and Republican administrations on most important issues” which makes it doubtful that there will be any difference for South Asia or the world in general no matter whoever wins.

Whatever little differences between them, they are “simply stylistic” Prabir says. “For Trump, bullying is the new diplomacy. He believes that by bullying and threats, he can rebuild the hegemony of the US. Kamala Harris believes that the old methods of persuasion, threat of sanctions and good old-fashioned regime change can be reworked to achieve the same objective. The difference is only in style.”

However, Prabir concludes on a positive note claiming they are also similar because, “both have no comprehension that the world has changed irretrievably, and no amount of either bullying or clever diplomacy will restore either the Western hegemony over the world or the US as the sole hegemon.”

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch
2024 US Presidential Polls: An Undemocratic System


Narender Thakur , C. Saratchand | 04 Nov 2024
NEWSCLICK INDIA

The Nov 5 polls involve many issues of concern to the working people, but the electoral system is such that whatever the outcome, it is unlikely to resolve these problems.

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS CLICK HERE


The presidential election process in the United States is unique for a number of reasons. First, it is possibly the only country in the world where a candidate can lose the presidential election even if they obtain a majority of the votes (popular vote). This is the case since a candidate has to win a majority of 270 votes in an electoral college of 538. Each of the 50 states and the capital, Washington District of Columbia, are each allotted a certain number of electoral college votes ostensibly based on population, with each of the states having at least 3 electoral college votes.

This system, supplemented by voter suppression that disproportionately impacts minorities adversely, currently tends to favour the Republican Party, which politically dominates rural or semi-urban states and areas with small populations. Further, within many (but not all) states, the winner of the popular vote of that state receives all the electoral college votes allotted to that state. This results in the irrelevance of the votes of other candidates in that state.

However, the “centrist” leadership of the Democratic Party has tended to acquiesce with this exclusionary system unlike the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This is evident from the voting records of congresspersons of the Democratic Party in almost every legislation that poses even the mildest challenge to big business. In each such case, a sufficient number of Democratic Party congresspersons can always be found to scuttle the relevant legislation.

In order to try and explain this acquiescence, it may be apposite to underline the second unique feature of the electoral system of the US, namely, that there are only two electorally significant parties, i.e., the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This two-party system has emerged out of a complex historical process which may be approximately summarised as follows: unlike other countries with many political parties where the reformist leadership of the Left of Centre parties by and large compromises with capital, in the US, capital de facto dominates both these parties to an extent that exceeds what is the case in any other country.

As long as this two-party system and electoral college process exist, it is extremely difficult for any Left wing political movement to become electorally significant. Therefore, many Left forces in the US tend to (but not always) advocate for support to the Democratic Party presidential candidate in order to defeat the Right wing Republican Party, which is currently led by Donald Trump and currently metamorphosing into a neo-fascist organisation.

Due to the joint impact of the two-party system and the electoral college-based presidential election process (which is undemocratic), the voting in a small number of states, known as battleground states, have acquired outsized influence. In other words, in the non-battleground (or safe) states, the number of swing voters who switch their voting choice between the two major parties is not large enough to change the party candidate who wins that state.

In the battleground states, it is the swing voters of these states who are decisive in determining the victor in that state. Therefore, the entire focus of political campaign in the presidential election process is directed toward the swing voters of these battleground states.
The Political Economy Context

The current presidential contest, which is principally between Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump, exemplifies the issues highlighted in the preceding paragraphs. However, both the process and outcome of the presidential election is the joint outcome of the encounter between the prevailing political economy context and the extant undemocratic electoral system in the US.

Let us, therefore, briefly set out the political economy setting of the current presidential election. First, the imperialist hegemony of the US is declining due to the end of the super imperialist (or unipolar) interlude exemplified, above all, by the rise of China and the return of Russia.

Second, the ongoing process of neoliberalisation in the US has resulted in a severe squeeze on the working people since the 1970s and has disproportionately impacted minorities and women. This has involved stagnation in wages relative to what was the case before the 1970s, decline in trade unions (though there has been some recent resurgence), the rise of a racially and gender wise differentiated precariat, out migration of production capacity especially in activities involving the relatively lower and middle reaches of the technological ladder etc.

Initially, this process benefited big business in the USA since these multinational corporations got these commodities produced in areas principally in and around China (due to labour arbitrage) but the bulk of the profits that were realised accrued to these very same multinational corporations of the USA in the form of rentier incomes (deriving from the actions of international financial capital centred in the US), merchant profits, royalties on “intellectual property” etc.

However, as China ascended the technological ladder (in spite of counter moves of the government of the US), capitalists in the US, too, felt a downward pressure on their profits as regards both merchant profits and royalties on “intellectual property”. Needless to say, this downward pressure on profits was disproportionately felt by small enterprises.

The reaction of both parties to this unfolding political economy context has tended to converge (but not fully) in a regressive direction. The Republican Party, especially Trump, has firstly sought to scapegoat (non-white) immigrants for the travails of the working people along two lines. One, these non-white immigrants, it is claimed, reduce employment and wages of residents. In fact, most of these non-white immigrants end up doing those types of work and at wages both of which are undesirable to working residents of the US. Some high wage jobs are undertaken by immigrants since there are no residents available to undertake these jobs.

Two, it is claimed that the Democratic Party-led government diverts public resources toward these non-white immigrants. This claim is specious since these accounts are at best anecdotal and there is no accounting of the amounts involved as a share of total social welfare expenditure of the government of the US. However, this xenophobia neatly dovetails with the explicit racism of the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party, acting as the “Left” wing of capital in the US is unwilling to counter the Republican Party by making the case for an expanded social welfare system that is financed by taxation of the super-rich. Therefore, the Democratic Party’s implicit racism has tended to involve a step-by-step acquiescence in this item in the neo-fascist agenda of the Republican Party.

Therefore, none of the “centrist” leaders of the Democratic Party are willing to advocate for policies that can directly combat the racism of the Republican Party, including increase of the minimum wage, universal health insurance coverage, public financing of universal child and elder care etc.

As far as the relative decline of the imperialist hegemony of the US is concerned, both parties have basically the same set of policies though the public articulation and temporal sequencing of these policies differs between both parties. Objectively, the US is incapable of strategically contending with both China and Russia simultaneously. Therefore, the government of the US seems to be coming around to the view that military conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia ought to be wound down (without too much loss of face) so that its resources may be relatively concentrated against China.

The ostensible difference in the foreign policy platform of both parties appears more accentuated than is the case due to the fatuousness involved in Donald Trump’s articulation of his campaign points in this regard. The foreign policy record of Trump’s presidential term between 2017 and 2021 is ample testimony of the validity of the proposition of a de facto consensus on foreign policy among both parties.

The relative decline of the US, briefly discussed in the preceding paragraphs, has been geographically uneven within the country. In many states that are in the interior of the country, the decline in manufacturing has not been even partly compensated (in terms of output but not by equivalent jobs in terms of wages and working conditions) by the rise of service sector activities unlike in both the coastal areas.

The Battleground States

In the light of the issues we have highlighted, let us now examine some salient features of the ongoing presidential process in the US with special reference to the battleground states. We examine data regarding electoral college voting, popular vote and recent poll surveys. Besides, we also look into the five socio-economic characteristics of the US states, including rural population, per capita income, unemployment, race, and education level by bachelor degree and above.

Many states have had close presidential votes in the past 40 years. Over the past eight presidential elections, 26 states were won by less than a three-point margin in at least one election. This includes Florida and Nevada, which had tight margins in five of the last eight elections (1992–2020).

Figures 1 and 2 show the number and names of the US battleground states where the winning party was different from previous presidential elections during the period 1992-2020. Figure 1 shows that the highest number of battleground states was in 1992 at 22 but this reduced to six in 2016 and 5 in 2020.

Figure 2 shows 26 battleground states during the period 1992-2020. The highest number of switches in the identity of the winning party are as follows: Nevada (5), Florida (5), North Carolina (4), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (4), Wisconsin (4), Georgia (3), Ohio (3), Montana (3), and Arizona (3), reflecting a range 3-5 for the 10 battleground states and another 16 states reflected a change of 1-2 for the same metric.

The 10 battleground states in the range of 3-5% can be analysed here for the vote shares of both parties during the presidential elections of both 2020 and 2016. Figures 3 and 4 show the vote shares. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the shares of rural population, per capita income and unemployment rate to examine the voting preference of states.

The share of popular votes for Biden in the top-10 battleground states in 2020 was as follows: Nevada (50.1), Florida (47.9), North Carolina (48.6), New Hampshire (52.7), Pennsylvania (49.9), Wisconsin (49.4), Arizona (49.4), Montana (40.5), Ohio (45.2), and Georgia (49.5). Among these top-10 battleground states, six had more than 49 % popular vote share for Biden, with two states having more than 50% (Nevada and New Hampshire).

The corresponding vote shares for Trump are: Nevada (47.7), Florida (51.2), North Carolina (48.6), New Hampshire (45.4), Pennsylvania (49.9), Wisconsin (48.8), Arizona (49.1), Montana (56.9), Ohio (53.3), and Georgia (49.2).

Six of the top 10 battleground states have more than 49% popular vote shares for Trump. Further in two states, he had more than 50% share (Florida and Montana). It may be not unimportant in this context to examine the share of rural population and unemployment rate in these states.


Battleground States Voting in Recent Polls

Let us now focus on those states that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016. These states include Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Slim victory margins in elections also indicate that a state could have been won by either party. In 2020, seven states were won by a margin of three percentage points or less. These included the five previously mentioned states as well as North Carolina and Nevada.

Figures 3 and 4 show that Nevada and New Hampshire are battleground states that favoured Biden while Florida and Montana favoured Trump during 2020 with more than 50% popular votes. Figure 5 shows the shares of rural population in Florida (8%) and Montana (48%) and New Hampshire (44%) and Nevada (6%). The share of rural population is one (but not the sole) determinant of support for the Republican Party

Figure 6 shows per capita income of these four state,s namely Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and were won by a margin of three percentage points or less. These states included the five above states, in addition to North Carolina and Nevada.
Rural Populace, Per Capita Income, Unemployment, Race

It is important to examine the shares of rural population of these seven states: Arizona (11%), Georgia (27%), Michigan (28%), Pennsylvania (24%), Wisconsin (17%), North Carolina (34%) and Nevada (6%) as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 6 shows the Per Capita Income of these four states are as followed: Florida ($69,000-20th rank) and Montana ($65,000 -30th rank) and New Hampshire ($79,000 -10th rank) and Nevada ($66,000 -26th rank), reflecting lower rankings of these states in the US.

Typically (but not always) higher per capita income states tend to vote Democrat while lower per capita income states tend to vote Republican. The per capita income of these seven battleground states is as followed: Arizona ($63,000-35th rank), Georgia ($59,000-42 rank), Michigan ($61,000-40th rank), Pennsylvania ($69,000-19th rank), Wisconsin ($65,000-31st rank), North Carolina ($62,000-37th rank) and Nevada ($66,000-26th rank, as discussed earlier). It is not unsurprising that the seven battleground states are distributed around the middle ranks of states in terms of per capita income.

It may also be relevant to point out here that within each state, the relatively densely populated urban areas tend to vote Democrat while the relatively sparsely populated rural and semi-urban areas tend to vote Republican. This rural-urban divide tends to be higher in Democrat-leaning states while this divide is lesser in Republican- leaning states.

The relative economic decline of the US has tended to disproportionately impact rural and semi-urban states. In the absence of any meaningful solutions to this greater decline in rural and semi-urban areas on the part of the Democratic Party, Trump’s neo-fascist demagogy has tended to be more effective among the working people living in these areas

Figure 7.1 shows unemployment rates in the US states during September 2024. The unemployment rates of the seven battleground states are as followed: Arizona (3.5%), Georgia (3.6%), Michigan (4.5%), Pennsylvania (3.4%), Wisconsin (2.9%), North Carolina (3.8%) and Nevada (5.6%). The unemployment rate in Florida (3.3%) and Montana (3.3%) and New Hampshire (2.5%) and Nevada (5.6%- 50th rank as highest). The official unemployment rates tend to underestimate actual unemployment due to the discouraged worker effect. But the conditions of work, including the level of real wages, will tend to impact voting behaviour across states.

The impact of the state-level unemployment rates in the US tend to be refracted through the racial composition of the population of various states. There are four non-battleground states that are not majority white. The share of the white population in these states are: District of Columbia with 40.9%, California-39.4% Hawaii-36.5% and New Mexico – 47.7%. The shares of whites in the seven battleground states are as follows: Arizona (53.4%), Georgia (50.1%), Michigan (72.4%), Pennsylvania (73.5%), Wisconsin (78.6%), North Carolina (60.5%) and Nevada (45.9%).

Typically, the lower the share of the white population, the greater the share of people that vote Democrat. However, the share of Hispanic or Latinx people who vote Democrat are lower than the share of African Americans who vote Democrat.

Education Level and Voting Behaviour

Another indicator of voting behaviour across states is educational attainment. Figure 7.2 shows trends in educational attainments in states of US using the bachelor degree as the differentiator. The share of people with a bachelor degree or higher in battleground states are: Arizona (32%), Georgia (35%), Michigan (32%), Pennsylvania (35%), Wisconsin (33%), North Carolina (35%) and Nevada (28%). The other three states in terms of the same metric are: Florida (33%), Montana (35%) and New Hampshire (40%).

States which rank high in terms of this metric are: Washington District of Columbia (63%), Massachusetts (47%), Colorado (44%), Vermont (44%), New Jersey (43.5%), Maryland (43%), Connecticut (42%), Virginia (41%). Typically, states with higher levels of educational attainment tend to vote Democrat while those with lower levels of the same metric tend to vote Republican.
Opinion Polls in Various States

Let us now turn to trends in opinion polls regarding the presidential elections to be held on November 5, 2024. Figure 9 shows average poll survey vote shares of both candidates in various states. In the battleground states, the average vote share of Kamala Harris, according to various opinion polls, were as follows: Arizona (46.6%), Georgia (46.8%), Michigan (48.6%), Pennsylvania (47.4%), Wisconsin (48.7%), North Carolina (47.4%) and Nevada (47.7%).

As per the same metric, Kamala Harris has the following expected performance in three other states: Florida (44.2%), Montana (39.5%) and New Hampshire (50.3%). The expected average vote share of Donald Trump is as follows: Arizona (48.4%), Georgia (48.8%), Michigan (46.9%), Pennsylvania (48.5 %), Wisconsin (48%), North Carolina (48.7%) and Nevada (48.1%), Florida (51.4%), Montana (57.5%) and New Hampshire (44.7%).

Figures 10 and 11 show the shares of expected voter preferences in CNN poll surveys on September 4 and October 23-28, 2024, in the six battleground states. On September 4, 2024, in the six battleground states, Harris was expected to be ahead of Trump in four battleground states (Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin) while Trump was ahead in Arizona. Both candidates were expected to be tied in Pennsylvania.

In a subsequent CNN poll survey conducted during October 23-28, Harris was expected to be ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin (51%) while both candidates were expected to be tied in Pennsylvania.

The ability of opinion polls to predict US presidential election results have been mixed. It is fairly well established that some supporters of Trump do not accurately reveal their voting preferences leading to an undercounting of his support in opinion polls. Needless to say, this effect is likely to be significant in battleground states. It is difficult to disregard the proposition that support of both candidates in terms of the electoral college is too close to be called conclusively.
Conclusion

The forthcoming US presidential election is one involving many issues of concern to the working people and the capitalists of the country. But the electoral system of the country, working in conjunction with the two-party system, is such that the result of the elections is unlikely to result in any significant move toward resolving these problems. Therefore, Trump is seen by some as a pro-poor candidate principally on “cultural” grounds, while both he and his party are resolutely opposed to every meaningful economic measure to address the problems confronting the working people.

Likewise, Trump demagogically puts himself forward as an “anti-war” candidate. Such false claims made by him seem to have some purchase since the essential points of Harris’ policies are identical to that of Trump while the language of their propaganda differs.

Therefore, while Harris has sought to foreground the threat of the Republican Party to ban abortions but without addressing the economic problems faced by women, Trump has sought to portray Harris as being unfit for office. The challenge for the Left is to combat Trump’s neo-fascism but decisively go beyond the dubious policy proposals of Harris.

Narender Thakur is Professor, Department of Economics, Dr. BR Ambedkar College, University of Delhi. C. Saratchand is professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Culture

Chinese video game Black Myth: Wukong becomes global sensation



For director Yang Tingmu the ability of something so inherently Chinese to resonate with global audiences lies in the unique animation.


ANN | China Daily
04 Nov, 2024

The first Chinese AAA game, Black Myth: Wukong, inspired by the classic novel Journey to the West, has become a global sensation since its release in August this year. Every aspect of the game — from its music and songs to its animations — has been in the spotlight, including Unfinished, the ending clip of chapter six, and its director Yang Tingmu.

“I’ve watched several reaction videos from international fans, and I was surprised to see that many of them were moved to tears,” said Yang, founder of Fantasier Animation.

For him, the ability of something so inherently Chinese to resonate with global audiences lies in the uniqueness of the animation.

“When you truly incorporate your emotions and cultural identity as a Chinese person, this sentiment can reach foreigners too. Even if they aren’t familiar with the story of Journey to the West or the visual style we used, they can sense that the product is cohesive in every aspect and feel emotionally connected to it,” he explained.

Yang credits the success of the clip and its reflection of Chinese culture to a collaborative effort: the dialogue is taken from the original novel, the music is inspired by the theme song of the 1986 TV adaptation of Journey to the West, and the character Wukong is influenced by its Peking Opera portrayal.

However, the unique animation of the Chinese lianhuanhua (palm-sized comic books) is solely the work of Yang and his team. They initially explored various painting styles, including traditional Chinese water and ink, before ultimately choosing the lianhuanhua aesthetic.

“Lianhuanhua-style illustrations are familiar to most Chinese people, but no one has seen them animated before,” Yang noted. “This blend of familiarity and novelty creates a unique effect.”

Yang conducted extensive research, drawing inspiration primarily from traditional baimiao, or ink line drawing. One of his main sources was the work of Li Gonglin (1049-1106), a Northern Song Dynasty painter renowned for this technique.

“My goal is to restore the ancient essence of Journey to the West,” Yang explained. “I wanted to steer clear of contemporary animation techniques, and Li Gonglin’s style was exactly what I needed.”

Yang was also deeply inspired by the murals in Dunhuang, Gansu province, which he studied to capture intricate details, like the folds in clothing. Another major influence was the artist Dai Dunbang, who created an entire set of artworks based on Journey to the West.

Even with thorough research and preparation, the project remained challenging for Yang and his team, as they were not only reviving a traditional style but also pioneering a new approach: animating lianhuanhua.

Yang described how his team was “building a new animation technique from scratch”. One example was animating a large cluster of auspicious clouds, something never attempted before. According to Yang, the final version of the clouds features multiple circular lines that rotate independently, with the overall outline moving alongside the inner circles. This creates a dynamic effect as cloud clusters merge, separate, and then merge again.

“While it may appear to be a single pattern, it actually contains many layers of motion, making this technique a breakthrough for us,” explained Yang.

Illustrating animals like snakes, turtles, and chickens pecking at grain also presented challenges for Yang and his team. Despite their industry experience, it was their first time animating some of these animals.

“We looked for references from books and videos, and some team members even visited the zoo. We needed to see the actual animals and capture their appearances from different angles before bringing them to life in animation,” Yang said.

As Unfinished received attention and praise, many netizens suggested that if expanded into a feature-length film, it could become the next “classic”. Yang’s response was practical. He noted that his combined team of about 70 people took six months to complete the later production stages for the short film. “Creating a full-length film would require two to three hundred staff,” he said.

He added that innovative techniques, like the new movement patterns, are mastered by only a small number of specialists. “Making short films is like using experimental technology in a lab, not yet ready for mass production,” Yang explained. “While we’ve developed the method in a lab setting, scaling it up would pose numerous challenges — standardisation issues, a limited pool of skilled personnel, and the training of a larger talent base are all practical obstacles.”

Originally published in Dawn, November 4th, 2024
Jabalia death march


Muhammad Ali Siddiqi 
Published November 3, 2024 
DAWN

IT will live in history: the Jabalia death march. As reported by Al Jazeera, the fleeing Palestinians were carrying white flags while going through checkpoints, but the Israeli bombardment continued. 

Correctly did Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi tell US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that what was going on in Gaza was “ethnic cleansing”, while the Jewish Voice for Peace has compared it to the Holocaust and asked the American administration to halt arms supplies to Israel.

This paper’s issue of Oct 23, 2024, is archival material and tells us more about the misery of the Palestinian people than all words put together. The picture on the front page shows the wreckage of a house. In the background are masses of people forcefully displaced from their north Gaza homes as Israeli planes had rained bombs. They have had no food and water for weeks.

Unless I missed it in the voluminous literature on the Der Führer era, I do not think the Luftwaffe ever rained bombs on fleeing Jewish people. The time-yellowed 1,400 pages of John Toland’s Pulitzer Prize-winning classic Adolf Hitler contain every act of bestiality perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazi regime but it mentions no such horrifying drama, which I am sure must have satisfied the sadistic instincts of racists like Yoav Gallant in the Benjamin Netanyahu cabinet.

The north Gaza trauma coincided with Israel’s latest choice of a war theatre — Lebanon. Such is Israel’s fixation with showing off its military power that it used no less than 100 jets on tiny Lebanon. The targets hit included a hospital named after one of Lebanon’s most popular prime ministers, Rafic Hariri. This was not a mistake. As I wrote in one of my pieces, it is Israel’s official policy to hit hospitals and places of worship to tell the world it doesn’t care about what the world thinks of its crimes, with the categorical support it enjoys from Western powers. (In Nuseirat in northern Gaza, Israeli forces hit a school, killing 17 people, including children. Instead of expressing regret it said it was a Hamas command and control centre which was previously a school!)


What are the prospects of peace in the region?

One can estimate the number of civilian casualties in Beirut when four apartment buildings bustling with men, women and children were flattened.

While Lebanon was in the throes of a bloodbath, the issue for the US was to make a comment that would not annoy Israel. So American envoy Amos Hochstein made a ‘safe’ statement, saying Washington was trying to end the war in Lebanon “as soon as possible”, stressing that the US was seeking a lasting resolution to the crisis.

A true indication of civilian casualties in Lebanon came from Tyre, a Unesco World Heritage site. Normally it has a population of 50,000. However, following the mass exodus in the wake of the Israeli attack on Sept 23, less than 14,000 people were reportedly left in the city.

Yet, despite the thinning of the population, casualties were still high as revealed by Tyre’s disaster management spokesman: “Seven buildings were levelled and more than 400 apartments in their vicinity damaged.” Four streets, he said were “completely blocked by debris”.

On the very first day of the blitz, codenamed ‘Northern Arrows’, 558 people, including 50 children and 94 women, were killed while 50,000 fled to Syria. No wonder Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati called the Israeli attack “a war of destruction”. However, so thorough is the Zionist control of the international media that on Oct 24, when I googled to check casualties in Tyre what I got was this: “There were no re­­ports of casualties in Tyre, where the Is­­raeli military had issued evacuation warnings ahead of the strikes.”

What are the prospects of peace in the region?

According to Da­­niel Levy, president of the US/Middle East Project, there is little possibility of peace in Palestine. According to him: “The game plan — sadly declared openly and publicly by Israel’s leaders from the get-go — was an intensification and continuation of the displacement and the denial of Palestinian rights that has gone on for decades, but in a far more gruesome way.”

He told Al Jazeera: “We are at a new place in the north of Gaza where the intention is apparently to entirely depopulate that area using war crimes of starvation, of allowing disease to spread; even the prevention of polio could not be continued.”

According to him, Israeli authorities are implementing the ‘General’s Plan’ aimed at starving, bombing, and forcibly extracting civilians out of the north of the Gaza Strip.

Postscript: Z.A. Bhutto once remarked only Islam can give peace to the holy land because it is the only religion which recognises the rights of the three communities to Jerusalem.

The writer is Dawn’s External Ombudsman.

Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2024