ANTI FREE TRADE  ANTI GLOBALISM

Majority of Americans take a dim view of increased trade with other countries

 

• SHORT READS

|

JULY 29, 2024

BYSHANAY GRACIA

When considering the costs and benefits of increased trade with other countries, a 59% majority of Americans say the United States has lost more than it has gained, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in April.

Overall, the public’s attitudes about trade have changed little since 2021. However, Republicans’ views have become more negative.

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents now say the U.S. has lost more than it has gained from increased trade. That is 8 percentage points higher than in 2021.

Democrats and Democratic leaners remain divided on this question. Half of Democrats say the U.S. has gained more than it has lost, while 47% say the opposite. Democrats were similarly divided on this question in 2021.

How we did this

Demographic, educational differences in views of increased trade

Americans with at least a four-year bachelor’s degree are more likely than those with less formal education to say increased trade with other countries has more benefits than costs for the U.S.

Nearly half of college graduates (47%) say the U.S. has gained more than it has lost from increased trade, compared with about a third of those with less education (31%). These differences are evident in both parties.

There also are differences in both parties by race and ethnicity as well as family income. And Republicans differ by age on this issue.

Among Democrats

• 60% of Asian and 53% of White Democrats say the U.S. has gained more than it’s lost from more trade. Hispanic and Black Democrats are less positive about the impact of greater trade (45% and 42%, respectively, say the U.S. has gained more than it has lost).
  
  
• Upper-income Democrats (62%) are more positive about the impact of increased trade than are middle- (52%) or lower-income Democrats (42%).

Among Republicans

• White Republicans are particularly critical of the growth in international trade: Just 22% say the U.S. has gained more than it’s lost. About a third of Black and Hispanic Republicans also say this (35% and 33%, respectively), as do 49% of Asian Republicans.
  
  
• There are relatively modest differences among Republicans by income, but upper-income Republicans are somewhat more likely than middle- and lower-income Republicans to view increased trade positively.
  
  
• Younger Republicans are more likely than older Republicans to say the U.S. has gained more than it has lost from increased trade.

Trade is a low-priority issue for most Americans

While trade with other nations is an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign, it is not a top concern for most Americans. In our 2024 policy priorities survey, dealing with global trade ranked near the bottom of 20 policy goals asked about.

In our April survey, we asked respondents to weigh the benefits of more trade (“it has helped lower prices and increased the competitiveness of some U.S. businesses”) against the drawbacks (“it has cost jobs in manufacturing and other industries and lowered wages for some U.S. workers”).

Another recent survey by the Center found considerable public skepticism about the benefits from U.S. trade with China, but not with Canada. Nearly half of Americans (47%) said China benefits more from the U.S.-China trade relationship than America does. Only 14% said the same of U.S. trade relations with Canada.

Related: Americans Are Critical of China’s Global Role – as Well as Its Relationship With Russia

When asked about free trade agreements generally – without context – Americans are more supportive: In July, 65% of Americans say that, in general, free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries have been a good thing. But there are wide partisan differences in these opinions. Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say free trade agreements have been good for the U.S., compared with only about half of Republicans (53%).

Note: Here are the questions from the April survey and the survey methodology. And here are the questions from the July survey and the July survey methodology.

Topics

• Global Economy & Trade
• Global Trade

SHARE THIS LINK:
Share

Shanay Gracia is a research assistant at Pew Research Center.

Q&A
How regular voters played an impactful role in urging Biden to step aside

Launched in reaction to the presidential debate, Pass the Torch brought rapid-response organizing and positive messaging to the fight against fascism in the 2024 election.

Alessandra Bergamin 

July 29, 2024

On the evening of June 27, after the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Aaron Regunberg began texting friends and colleagues asking, “What are we going to do?” While Biden had already been polling behind Trump, the debate revealed an unsteady incumbent unlikely to rally Democratic voters ahead of the November election. In the following days, as President Biden reiterated his commitment to running, Regunberg and others hopped on the phone and began thinking through their options: Was there a role for grassroots organizing? And can we cobble together the capacity to do it? The following Friday, just over a week after the debate, Pass the Torch went public.

Helmed by a steering committee that includes Regunberg, Tiara Mack and Wendy Lawton, Pass the Torch is an all volunteer organization that mobilized Democratic voters to urge Biden to step aside. For less than 28 days in the aftermath of the debate, around 50 volunteers participated in near-nightly calls to help mobilize tens of thousands of voters across the U.S. to take action. The day before Biden announced he would be stepping down, Pass the Torch organized a demonstration outside the White House, driving home the demand from regular voters to see a change in leadership.

Less than a week after Biden stepped down, I spoke with Regunberg — a progressive community and electoral organizer for some 15 years. Both during and following his time as a Rhode Island state legislator, Regunberg was involved in crisis response organizing, particularly after the 2016 election and then in the aftermath of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death and the impending confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Regunberg has been a longtime climate organizer and, as a law student, organized efforts to shut down recruitment events by big law firms that represent Exxon Mobil. He is currently running for Congress in Rhode Island’s first congressional district. We discussed rapid response organizing, the impact of positive messaging and the role Pass the Torch played in Biden’s decision.

Given your background, especially with rapid response campaigns — such as after the 2016 election — were there any lessons you took from those experiences and applied to Pass the Torch?

I think one lesson or similarity from the [post-2016 election] experience was just that there are these moments when you can tell there’s a shared experience across billions of people. There’s a shared response. There’s a sort of pent up energy and a need to do something about it. It’s important that, as a movement, we are ready to step up when that happens and fill the vacuum to help channel that pent up energy and those voices into useful, meaningful action.

In this saga, the last few weeks ended up being particularly important because — and this is honestly one of my biggest frustrations from the whole experience — for whatever set of reasons, none of the progressive movement’s organizational infrastructure stepped up. I was surprised that none of the many big progressive, electorally-focused organizations that have a severe stake in stopping fascism in November were willing to step up and get to work on this.

At the same time, one of the biggest talking points was that this push [for Biden to step back] was just coming from elites and donors, which we know is the exact opposite, right? It was regular voters for months or years who have been very clear that they wanted something new. The debate was the shock that finally got some of the party elites to realize what regular voters had been saying all along. So it’s important that we have structures to make the voices of regular Democrats heard.

Was it part of Pass the Torch’s organizing strategy to counter that line of messaging — that elites and donors were behind the push for Biden to step down?

That was a big part of the whole logic of us organizing. In a lot of ways, so much of what was going to impact the resolution of this were the decisions and actions of folks at the very top of the party, behind closed doors. But because of that specious line of attack, we thought it was really important for there to be a component of this that was making sure the voices of regular Democrats were heard in the process. That’s really what we were trying to do.

What were some of the ways Pass the Torch organized to help make sure voices of regular Democrats were heard?

We thought it was really important that we make sure our Democratic leaders in Congress were hearing from voters — the party base. So we set up a call tool, we set up an email tool, and we generated around 10,000 phone calls to members of Congress and another 20,000 online actions. That was a big piece of it, but we also did some in-person actions, like at the Ohio state party convention. We had some folks similarly in Michigan and Wisconsin.

 

WNV’s guide to protecting and expanding democracy

On July 20, we did a big demonstration outside the White House that came together in just a couple of days. It was one of the most positive actions I’ve ever experienced. It was so nice to see the unity of the message — of everyone saying, “We’re here because we love Joe Biden. We are grateful for him, and it’s time for him to pass the torch.” We had a great group of diverse speakers that I think really spoke to the reality of how much this was not being driven by donors or elites. This [message] was from regular people who have so much on the line in this election.

We were doing outreach to delegates. Although it ended up not being necessary, we were working to identify and support delegates who felt similarly to us that Biden needed to pass the torch. Some of our members in Pennsylvania filmed an ad calling for Biden to pass the torch, and it was actually all volunteers who had worked hard in 2020 to elect Biden. We were going to try to get it directly in front of the president. We had an online support team, because any time a Democratic leader came out and publicly joined the call for the president to pass the torch, they were swarmed by some of these big grifter influencer accounts. We put together a Twitter support team of folks to offer online support when Dem leaders stepped up and did the right thing. So, kind of on the fly, we put together a bunch of different teams working on different angles to the issue.

Given the short time frame, how important was it to organize from multiple and different angles?

We were definitely in all-hands-on-deck, break-the-glass emergency mode — so let’s throw everything we can against the wall. There were dozens and dozens of volunteers who were putting in major time every day on this in our various Signal and Slack threads and at in-person and online actions.

It helped that we were in this sort of time-bound moment. We all knew we had a few weeks before the door slammed shut on this. We all knew that if and when Biden was officially nominated we were going to shut up and go back to being good Democratic soldiers, and do what we could to support the ticket and drag it over the finish line. It was this short-term moment when the course of American civilization could be decided. So [we thought] it’s time to just throw down and put everything we have in because we’re not going to have another chance.

Given that President Biden largely insisted he would continue to run, were there ever inflection moments when the campaign pivoted or changed organizing tactics to respond to what was being said?

We took on additional tactics and ideas as we went. When it became apparent the DNC was moving forward on this abbreviated timeline for an early virtual nomination, we switched focus onto that for several days until they delayed it. I think, in large part, it was delayed because of a Congressional sign-on letter we worked to draft and circulate. It was this weird time where you’d have one day where it seemed totally, utterly hopeless and the conversation was locked down. Then, the next day, you’d have more public calls, and it’d be like, “Oh, okay, we’ve got a real shot here.” Then, the next day, it would again seem like, “Oh, no, we’re done.” So, there were these big swings between hope and despair. But we all settled on a strategy of: “We can’t know exactly what’s happening, so let’s keep going and do whatever we can regardless of the rumors until it’s either resolved or it’s too late and it’s time to unite.”

You can see that sense of hope in the positive messaging around the Pass the Torch campaign. Did that also play a role in your organizing strategy?

A part of why we were doing this organizing was that we had enough faith in President Biden that he would eventually do the right thing. From the beginning, one of the main lines to try to shut down the conversation and dissuade folks from speaking out was that “Joe’s never going to do this, so all you’re doing is hurting our eventual nominee.” I think we were all coming from a place — in some ways, paradoxically — of having faith in President Biden that he would do what he has so often done throughout his career of public service and put the country first. That was a big part of our framing. In my opinion, and for many of us involved in this, Joe Biden has been the best president in our lifetimes on some of the issues we care about. But he just isn’t the best standard bearer for us in the 2024 election. We did want to have a message and framing for our organizing that acknowledged all of that.

Do you think this kind of positive framing helped re-energize volunteers to get involved with grassroots organizing ahead of an election that has already been somewhat demoralizing?

In any organization, anger and fear can be important motivators for taking constructive action — but they only take you so far, and they leave a gap. You need to have a hopeful vision undergirding your work to keep people involved and engaged, particularly over the last few weeks when it felt like there was a lot of fatalism. I mean, you had quotes from senior House Democrats saying, “We’ve all just resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency.” So, part of winning this push had to be saying, “That’s absurd, we can win this. Americans do not like Donald Trump and his radical extreme Project 2025 agenda. Americans are also feeling pretty good about Democrats, right? Democrats have been winning special elections. Our swing state senators are polling great. We’re actually in a strong position to win. We just have a particular problem at the top of the ticket and the good news about that is it’s actually a very solvable issue. So let’s get to work trying to solve it.”

What are some of the strategizing lessons or insights learned from this kind of rapid response organizing?

One important thing for us was being really conscious about our messaging and trying to stick to it. There were always people who would throw out suggestions or there were opportunities to potentially do stuff that would fall outside the frame that we decided was the most useful and impactful. So having discipline on that was important. This was all on the fly, so we left capacity on the table because we didn’t have the best onboarding and plug-in system. We were building the plane as we were flying it, and we knew it was temporary. Planning more carefully from the beginning would have been valuable, but we didn’t really have the luxury of time.

The one lesson from this that I would want folks looking at it to take away is: We didn’t buy into the push to shut this down and say, “It’s never going to happen.” And so we took action. The same goes with everyone else who spoke out on this. It’s a good lesson for every progressive organizer because that is a common tool used to shut down all sorts of important efforts — to say, “Well, that’s never going to happen, so shut up.” I think this was a really good example of that reality. Often things seem impossible right up until the moment that they become inevitable, and I think we saw that in this saga. That’s how a lot of the fights we care about are going to go. They’re going to seem impossible until they suddenly start seeming inevitable. Our job is to ignore the haters on that first leg of the work who are saying it’s impossible.

Support Us
Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today! Donate

Now that President Biden has stepped down, what role do you think Pass the Torch played in making it a reality?

It’s really hard to know. So much of the credit for this goes to people like Nancy Pelosi. Thank God she’s someone who understands the need to win and knows how to pull the levers of power within the party. We don’t want to be taking too much credit. There are people in our group with a lot of experience who said, from a causation perspective, that our organizing had 1 or 2 percentage points of impact. Again, just because no one else was doing this. Showing that this was coming from the majority of Democrats was so important. So I think it’s not too hubristic to say that we were a very small, but still solidly appreciable factor.

During the debrief call with our core crew who took on leadership roles in the group, I said something along the lines of: “This is something to remember and take with you for the rest of your lives. To have played a legitimate role in one of the most consequential few weeks leading to this decision, that could be the most impactful thing any of us do as organizers. That’s not to denigrate everything else we’re able to accomplish in our lives, but this was really an important moment and effort that you all were a part of.”

Going forward, will Pass the Torch continue to organize ahead of the election?

We’re still figuring that out. I think we initially thought maybe there could be some use in helping with uniting Democrats around Harris. It turned out that that just happened immediately and organically, which had been one of our talking points. They were saying it would be chaos and disunity, and we were saying, “What are you talking about?” I think there are some members of the group who are interested in thinking through if there are ways to continue contributing with swing state organizing, but for a lot of us, our thoughts are that this was a temporary thing for one particular moment and we’re going to carry these new friendships with us for the rest of our lives. As a group, Pass the Torch has played its role.



Alessandra Bergamin

Alessandra Bergamin is a freelance investigative journalist based in Los Angeles. Her work focuses on the intersection of environmental conflict and human rights around the world. She has written for The Baffler, In These Times, Harper’s Magazine, National Geographic, TheNewYorker.com, The Lily, and DAME Magazine among others. She is currently reporting on the overlap of military violence and environmental activism for The Leonard C. Goodman Institute for Investigative Reporting.

No Carrots, Just Sticks: US Bullying Allies on China Chips

By Matthew Eitel
July 29, 2024

The US may tighten export controls on European and Asian companies to prevent China from leveraging old chip technology. It is a bad idea.

It is a stark ultimatum to two close US allies: stop selling and servicing your chipmaking technology in China or we will cripple your industry.

Unless Japan and the Netherlands restrict China’s access to previous-generation machines, the US reportedly could enforce existing — but so far unused — export controls that bar the sale of goods containing even minuscule amounts of American technology. The threat represents the latest effort to harden US restrictions aimed at kneecapping Beijing’s ability to modernize its military by producing or purchasing chip tech.

But Washington may be overplaying its hand. A new export control crackdown could give a body blow to the already strained global chip industry. It would undercut US diplomatic efforts to mobilize allies to confront China — a steep price for policies that are already showing signs of backfiring.

The mere suggestion that Washington was prepared to enforce the foreign direct product rule sent semiconductor stocks reeling. Shares in US chip firm AMD dropped more than 10%. US chip equipment maker Applied Materials stock plunged by 7.8%. Shares in high-flying NVIDIA dropped 6.6%.

US attention is focused on two companies: ASML and Japan’s Tokyo Electron. Both build cutting-edge machines that manufacture advanced semiconductors. In 2023, both the Netherlands and Japan acquiesced to US pressure and updated their export controls to align with US rules.

But gaps allowed China to stockpile massive amounts of equipment before the controls went into effect. ASML and Tokyo Electron continue to sell and service low-end tools in China. Washington views this as exploiting its export controls and believes that Amsterdam and Tokyo are moving too slowly. After Bloomberg reported that the US was considering toughening up its export controls against the two companies, shares in Tokyo Electron dropped 7.5% and ASML plunged 11% — shaving off $46.7 billion of ASML’s market value, the Dutch firm’s worst trading day since March 2020.

China is beating controls by acquiring last-generation tech from Tokyo Electron and ASML through intermediaries and using it to make high-end chips, according to US officials. Tightened export controls aim to keep China from making logic chips below the “advanced” threshold of 14 nanometers. SMIC, China’s chip manufacturing champion, used the old tools to make seven-nanometer chips and claims it can go further to five nanometers. Although that still would be a generation behind the cutting-edge of three nanometers, it would build the US case that the controls are too weak.

Admittedly, the current export controls have slowed China’s chip progress. Huawei and SMIC face severe production limitations. Roughly 80% of the AI chips have defects. Replacement parts for old, faulty equipment are hard to find — as are engineers willing to risk US sanctions to service the tech. Chinese AI firms are also bogged down by switching their AI models to Huawei’s tech, as most were built using NVIDIA’s.

For advocates of the US restrictions: this means mission accomplished. The export controls are making it harder for Beijing to catch up with the Western firms racing ahead in AI innovation.

But Chinese chip firms are not the only ones hurting. So are Western semiconductor leaders. Since 2022, the US controls have wiped out $130 billion in market capitalization for US chip companies. The restrictions deter foreign firms from making deals with US companies, encourage them to not use US tech, and deprive them of capital crucial to R&D. They are bifurcating the global tech industry, forcing firms to split their US and Chinese supply chains.

American chip firms feel they are being punished while others — particularly ASML and Tokyo Electron — fill the gaps. ASML earned nearly 50% of its second-quarter revenue of $5.2 billion in China this year, up from historical levels of 15 to 20%. China drove over 40% of Tokyo Electron’s FY2024 sales of almost $12 billion.

Both the Dutch and Japanese are furious about potential reinforced controls. In an unprecedented move, unnamed Japanese officials are publicly bucking the US, saying they will not comply. In order to protect ASML, the Netherlands could push the EU to impose countermeasures like tariffs or intellectual property restrictions on the US through an untested law passed in response to Trump-era tariffs on steel.

Amsterdam and Tokyo worry that the US tone has toughened. Before, the two countries believed that the US only targeted specific cutting-edge technology. Now they fear Washington is hellbent on forcing ASML and Tokyo Electron completely out of China.

If the US acts unilaterally, it risks reinforcing the narrative that the US is a “bully” over-reliant on extraterritorial measures and intent on decoupling rather than derisking from China.

The US cannot counter China alone. Cooperation with the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others is critical. When the US imposes export controls without convincing its partners, it gives China time to exploit loopholes: stockpiling older machines, accessing restricted tech through middlemen, improving smuggling routes, and developing domestic production. Piecemeal export controls force the US to play whack-a-mole and infuriate allies with constant rule changes.

China also could counterattack. Beijing dominates global supply chains for raw materials, electric vehicles, solar panels, and less-advanced chips. It also has deeper coffers to offset costs. Beijing so far has refrained from weaponizing this leverage — but that may not last.

Europe and Asia have attempted to walk a fine line between access to the Chinese market and US innovation. The US is trying to push them off the fence with tightened export controls. The hardline risks hurting everyone.

Matthew Eitel is Special Assistant to the President & CEO at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.

KA CHING!

Vatican investment office reports $49.6 million profit for 2023


Carol Glatz - Catholic News Service

July 29, 2024

Visitors gather in St. Peter's Square to pray the Angelus with Pope Francis at the Vatican July 21, 2024. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican investment office made 45.9 million euros (about $49.6 million) in profit in 2023, contributing 37.9 million euros (about $41 million) to the Vatican’s operating budget and 7.9 million euros (about $8.5 million) to increasing its assets, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See said in its annual report.

There was an increase of 13.6 million euros (about $14.7 million) in profit compared to 2022, mostly due to markedly improved results in investments, which also offset reduced profits from real estate holdings, it said in the report, published July 29

The administration, which controls most of the Vatican’s portfolio, including real estate, is known by its Italian acronym, APSA.

“These results have been achieved out of the conviction that we need to work steadily to increase the income stream and to cover expenses without eroding the Holy See’s assets and without calling for the sale of institutional properties,” Archbishop Giordano Piccinotti, president of APSA, said in a comment to Vatican News.

After losing more than 6 million euros ($6.5 million) with its investments in 2022, APSA registered “an economic surplus” of 27.6 million euros ($29.9 million) through its investments in stocks, bonds, gold and currencies in 2023, the report said.

While it made more than 52 million euros (more than $56 million) in profit from its real estate holdings in 2022, there was a sharp dip with a surplus of 35 million euros (more than $37 million) in 2023, it said.

APSA, the report said, administers, directly or through third parties, a total of more than 5,000 properties, which include churches, Vatican office buildings, residences for Vatican officials and apartments rented to Vatican employees, commercial office space and farmland. While the majority of the properties are in Italy and the province of Rome, some properties are located in London, Paris, Geneva and Lausanne.

Almost half of the 4,249 properties located in Italy are rented on the open market, it said, while 1,203 of those properties are rented at reduced rates. The remaining 1,028 properties do not bring in rental income and are typically used by Vatican offices or religious orders; these properties are also the largest, making up 70% of the total square-footage of its holdings in Italy.

APSA has implemented a new system for determining a more accurate and up-to-date “fair value” on properties, it said, and it is renovating and putting on the market vacated properties much more quickly.

APSA estimated the total value of the patrimony it controls at more than 2.7 billion euros (about $2.9 billion). That figure, however, includes only a symbolic 1 euro ($1.08) each for properties with a high environmental, historical, religious, cultural or archaeological significance.

The APSA report also said the Vatican paid Italy close to 6 million euros (about $6.5 million) in property taxes on real estate not used strictly for religious purposes and a little over 3 million euros (about $3.2 million) in corporate taxes for commercial activities outside the Vatican walls.

Among the number of new projects APSA is working on, the report said, includes the long-term development of an agrivoltaic system on a Vatican property outside Rome to supply the whole of Vatican City’s energy needs.

'White supremacist manifesto': Report unmasks 'history of racist writing' by Project 2025

Alex Henderson, AlterNet
July 29, 2024

Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Republican vice presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) appear on the first day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's far-right 900-page blueprint for a second Trump presidency.

Yet many of its proposals have come from Trump allies. And Heritage had a strong presence at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

Moreover, Trump's running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) wrote the forward for a forthcoming book by Heritage President Kevin Roberts — who, critics say, threatened violence against Project 2025's opponents when he told Real America's Voice, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

READ MORE: 'Now we crush Trump': Michael Moore unveils 2024 battle plan

In an article published on July 29, USA Today's Will Carless reports that according to some critics, Project 2025 has ties to white nationalists and white supremacists.

Donald Trump touts his wound and goes after Kamala Harris in speech

Carless notes that author Michael Harriot has attacked Project 2025 as a "white supremacist manifesto."

"A closer look at the named contributors to Project 2025 adds to the concern," Carless explains. "A USA Today analysis found at least five of them have a history of racist writing or statements, or white supremacist activity. They include Richard Hanania, who for years, wrote racist essays for white supremacist publications under a pseudonym until he was unmasked by a Huffington Post investigation last year."

Carless adds, "Failed Virginia GOP Senate candidate Corey Stewart, another named contributor, has long associated with white supremacists and calls himself a protector of America's Confederate history tasked with 'taking back our heritage.' One Project 2025 contributor wrote, in his PhD dissertation, that immigrants have lower IQs than white native citizens, leading to 'underclass behavior.' Another dropped out of contention for a prestigious role at the Federal Reserve amid controversy over a racist joke about the Obamas."

READ MORE: Trump's dark mental state is growing even 'worse' as election draws closer: historian

Civil rights attorney Arjun Sethi argues that Project 2025's proposals would, if implemented, be highly detrimental to non-white Americans.

Sethi told USA Today, "Project 2025 is a plan about how to regulate and control people of color, including how they organize, work, play and live. It seeks to regulate what they do with their bodies, how they advocate for their rights, and how they build family and community — all while disregarding the historical injustices and contemporary persecution they have experienced."

Harriot argues that Project 2025 is full of ideas that have been promoted by white supremacists and white nationalists.

Harriot told USA Today, "One of the things that you see when you read Project 2025 is not just the racist dog whistles, but some ideas that were exactly lifted from some of the most extreme white supremacists ever."

Although Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, Hariot describes it as an "employee manual" for a second Trump Administration.

Harriot told USA Today, "There's some cognitive dissonance. Trump doesn't get elected by people who are just outwardly racist, and being associated with Project 2025 would dismantle his plausible deniability, because it's so blatantly racist."

READ MORE: Residents symbolically cleanse Michigan town after white supremacist march

Native American exhibits at major museums closed months ago, but tribes are still waiting to get artifacts back

By —Philip Marcelo, Associated Press

Nation Jul 29, 2024 

NEW YORK (AP) — Tucked within the expansive Native American halls of the American Museum of Natural History is a diminutive wooden doll that holds a sacred place among the tribes whose territories once included Manhattan.

For more than six months now, the ceremonial Ohtas, or Doll Being, has been hidden from view after the museum and others nationally took dramatic steps to board up or paper over exhibits in response to new federal rules requiring institutions to return sacred or culturally significant items to tribes — or at least to obtain consent to display or study them.

The doll, also called Nahneetis, is just one of some 1,800 items museum officials say they’re reviewing as they work to comply with the requirements while also eyeing a broader overhaul of the more than half-century-old exhibits.

But some tribal leaders remain skeptical, saying museums have not acted swiftly enough. The new rules, after all, were prompted by years of complaints from tribes that hundreds of thousands of items that should have been returned under the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 still remain in museum custody.

“If things move slowly, then address that,” said Joe Baker, a Manhattan resident and member of the Delaware Tribe of Indians, descendants of the Lenape peoples European traders encountered more than 400 years ago. “The collections, they’re part of our story, part of our family. We need them home. We need them close.”

Sean Decatur, the New York museum’s president, promised tribes will hear from officials soon. He said staff these past few months have been reexamining the displayed objects in order to begin contacting tribal communities.

The museum also plans to open a small exhibit in the fall incorporating Native American voices and explaining the history of the closed halls, why changes are being made and what the future holds, he said.

Museum officials envision a total overhaul of the closed Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains halls — akin to the five-year, $19 million renovation of its Northwest Coast Hall, completed in 2022 in close collaboration with tribes, Decatur added.

“The ultimate aim is to make sure we’re getting the stories right,” he said.

Lance Gumbs, vice chairman of the Shinnecock Indian Nation, a federally recognized tribe in New York’s Hamptons, said he worries about the loss of representation of local tribes in public institutions, with exhibit closures likely stretching into years.

The American Museum of Natural History, he noted, is one of New York’s major tourism draws and also a mainstay for generations of area students learning about the region’s tribes.

He suggests museums use replicas made by Native peoples so that sensitive cultural items aren’t physically on display.

“I don’t think tribes want to have our history written out of museums,” Gumbs said. “There’s got to be a better way than using artifacts that literally were stolen out of gravesites.”

Gordon Yellowman, who heads the department of language and culture for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, said museums should look to create more digital and virtual exhibits.

He said the tribes, in Oklahoma, will be seeking from the New York museum a sketchbook by the Cheyenne warrior Little Finger Nail that contains his drawings and illustrations from battle.

The book, which is in storage and not on display, was plucked from his body after he and other tribe members were killed by U.S. soldiers in Nebraska in 1879.

“These drawings weren’t just made because they were beautiful,” Yellowman said. “They were made to show the actual history of the Cheyenne and Arapaho people.”

Institutions elsewhere are taking other approaches.

WATCH: Sexual abuse of Native American children at boarding schools exposed in new report

In Chicago, the Field Museum has established a Center for Repatriation after covering up several cases in its halls dedicated to ancient America and the peoples of the coastal Northwest and Arctic.

The museum has also since returned four items back to tribes, with another three pending, through efforts that were underway before the new regulations, according to spokesperson Bridgette Russell.

At the Cleveland Museum in Ohio, a case displaying artifacts from the Tlingit people in Alaska has been reopened after their leadership gave consent, according to Todd Mesek, the museum’s spokesperson. But two other displays remain covered up, with one containing funerary objects from the ancient Southwest to be redone with a different topic and materials.

And at Harvard, the Peabody Museum’s North American Indian hall reopened in February after about 15% of its roughly 350 items were removed from displays, university spokesperson Nicole Rura said.

Chuck Hoskin, chief of the Cherokee Nation, said he believes many institutions now understand they can no longer treat Indigenous items as “museum curiosities” from “peoples that no longer exist.”

The leader of the tribe in Oklahoma said he visited the Peabody this year after the university reached out about returning hair clippings collected in the early 1930s from hundreds of Indigenous children, including Cherokees, forced to assimilate in the notorious Indian boarding schools.

“The fact that we’re in a position to sit down with Harvard and have a really meaningful conversation, that’s progress for the country,” he said.

As for Baker, he wants the Ohtas returned to its tribe. He said the ceremonial doll should never have been on display, especially arranged as it was among wooden bowls, spoons and other everyday items.

Museum officials say discussions with tribal representatives began in 2021 and will continue, even though the doll technically does not fall under federal regulations because it’s associated with a tribe outside the U.S., the Munsee-Delaware Nation in Ontario.

“It has a spirit. It’s a living being,” Baker said. “So if you think about it being hung on a wall all these years in a static case, suffocating for lack of air, it’s just horrific, really.”

Labour hints at backing for sending Elgin Marbles on long-term loan to Greece as Keir Starmer woos EU for closer relations

By James Tapsfield, Political Editor For Mailonline
Published: 29 July 2024

Labour has hinted at backing for the Elgin Marbles being sent on long-term loan to Greece as Keir Starmer woos the EU for closer ties.

Culture minister Chris Bryant has raised eyebrows by praising the British Museum's attempts to resolve international disputes - such as over the Parthenon sculptures.

The dispute has been running for centuries, with Rishi Sunak and his Greek counterpart clashing bitterly on the issue last year.

Tory former chancellor George Osborne has been trying to negotiate a deal in his role as chair of the British Museum's board of trustees.

That could involve the Marbles being sent to Greece for a decade - although it is unclear Athens will agree as it would mean tacitly accepting the Museum's legal ownership.

Labour has hinted the Elgin Marbles (one section pictured) could be sent on long-term loan to Greece as Keir Starmer woos the EU for closer ties

Ending the saga could boost Sir Keir's efforts to 'reset' relations with Europe, which he has made a priority for his premiership.

The fifth-century BC Parthenon sculptures were moved from Athens between 1801 to 1812 by the Earl of Elgin, when it was still part of the Ottoman Empire.

The peer, who was the British ambassador, planned to set up a private museum before transferring them to the British Museum.

Greece insists the artefacts were obtained illegally by Lord Elgin, but the UK is adamant that they were legally obtained by Lord Elgin with the permission of the Ottoman authorities.

A 1963 law prevents the British Museum from permanently disposing of key items from its collection, although it would not stop a loan deal.

In November last year, a diplomatic spat broke out between the UK and Greece with the Elgin Marbles at the centre.

Mr Sunak cancelled a meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in London after he said Britain keeping the marbles was like 'cutting the Mona Lisa in half.'

The UK insisted that had broken a commitment from the Greeks not to use the visit for 'grandstanding' on the long-running spat.

In March 2023 Mr Sunak underlined his stance that such relics should stay in Britain.

'The UK has cared for the Elgin Marbles for generations,' he said. 'Our galleries and museums are funded by taxpayers because they are a huge asset to this country...

'We share their treasures with the world, and the world comes to the UK to see them.'

Answering a Parliamentary Question from Lib Dem MP Andrew George last week, Mr Bryant said: 'Decisions relating to the care and management of the museum's collections, including loaning objects from their collection, are a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum, in accordance with the British Museum Act 1963. The British Museum is operationally independent of the Government.

'We are aware that the Chair of the Trustees, George Osborne, has had talks with Greek Ministers on the issue, seeking a constructive partnership.

'We value the work that the British Museum does internationally, and welcome the success of their partnerships, such as the recent collaboration between the British Museum, the V&A, and the Manhyia Palace Museum in Ghana.

'With regards to the legal title for the Parthenon Sculptures, the removal of the sculptures was lawful and well-documented. They were transferred to the British Museum in 1816 and have been the legal property of the British Museum, not the UK Government, since then.'

Greek Prime Minister Kiriakos Mitsotakis, who was embroiled in a spat with Mr Sunak about the Marbles

In recent years, a number of items have been returned to their country of origins on loan agreements. This includes an agreement reached in January this year to loan a collection of gold items, referred to as Ghana's 'crown jewels', back to Ghana.

The agreement to return artefacts, known as the Asante gold, is part of a three-year loan agreement with the option to extend for a further three years.

A similar agreement is reportedly being negotiated with Greece which could see the Elgin Marbles returned to Greece as a part of an exchange for other artefacts from Greece to 'fill the void' Greece's culture minister Lina Mendoni said.

Rachel Reeves blames Tories for leaving £22bn hole in public finances

 

Why, and How, We Must Contest ‘Development’

   

By Claire Mcloughlin

July 29, 2024  58

Sometimes we assume that people everywhere want the same thing. We project our versions of a ‘good’ life onto the lives of others who surely, like us, aspire to a certain status, wealth, well-being, or set of worldly possessions. These egocentric tendencies underlie how the discourse and practice of ‘development’ became synonymous with the ‘one-size-fits-all’ pursuit of modernization – a Western-centric recipe for ‘progress’, the key ingredients being industrialization, capital investment, technological advancement, and institutional development.

The temptation to homogenize human wants and needs aren’t just a naïve mental tic but a harmful fallacy. It leads us too quickly to assume that development is everywhere desired, and desirable, when in reality there are always winners and losers. And when the Western project of ‘development’ promotes universal endpoints, it denies the myriad ways in which colonial injustices ensured that there could never be a level playing field for countries to reach them, even if they wanted to.

The Politics of Development is a new textbook and an introduction to this important field. Starting from the perspective of people’s everyday experiences, it tackles some of the most pressing questions that underlie global inequality and injustice, from the ground up. Find out more and request an inspection copy.

But what is development for, then, if it isn’t ours – or even someone else’s – pursuit of the good life?

The answer, of course, is that there can never be one answer. But this isn’t just another (typical) academic cop out. More deliberately, the answer actually lies within this somewhat unsatisfactory, non-answer. In practice, development is fundamentally about contesting different answers to this question of what is good, or bad, about the way social life is organized.

People answer differently because of the inevitable diversity of wants, needs, and preferences of individuals, groups and nations, each with divergent identities, lived experiences, mindsets and worldviews. Development can only happen by confronting, negotiating, and (more or less fairly) reconciling these differences. It is, in the real world, the unavoidable process of contesting alternative desired futures.

This is the core claim we advance in our new book, The Politics of Development, where we unpack the what, where, why, and how of this ubiquitous process of contestation. Drawing on a range of lived experiences from around the world, we shine a light on how it underlies progress in tackling some of the most intractable challenges we face – including poverty, inequality, exclusion, the climate crisis and protracted conflict.

But what does the process of contesting alternative desired futures look like, in practice? And why is contestation a better starting point for studying and researching development than ‘everyone wants the same thing’?

The short answer is that it encourages a more grounded analysis. It enables us to do justice to the diversity of desired futures while studying them through a common comparative lens. Examining the contours of contestation in situ can reveal what ‘development’ means locally (if it has any meaning at all) and, crucially, who decides. It allows us to reveal how historical legacies of colonial injustice have (re)-produced the gap between people’s lived realities and desired futures.

Rather than reducing the study of development to a narrow focus on end goals, studying contestation also urges us to interpret development outcomes as products of unequal power relations. Because contestation, like power, is universal, it does not confine us geographically to outdated binaries between the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ worlds.

Rather, contestation is possible everywhere and anywhere there are alternative desired futures. It isn’t contained to what we might consider ‘traditional’ political decision-making arenas like global summits, legislative assemblies, town councils or village gatherings. It is alive, habitual even, in the micropolitics of everyday life: on street corners and shantytowns, where goods and services are traded for political favors, in the digital sphere, where (un)popular opinion can become a hashtag phenomenon, or in homes, where everyday decisions affect the opportunities and freedoms people have to exercise agency over their own life choices.

A sharper focus on contestation brings us closer to these active and often catalytic sites of development. But we need new tools to evaluate what goes on inside them. In our book, The Politics of Development, we deploy the three ‘I’s framework – of institutions, interests and ideas – to help uncover the inner workings of contestation.

We show that anywhere alternative desired futures are being contested, there are:

• Institutions, or formal and informal rules, norms and customs
• Being contested by more (or less) rational actors with competing interests
• Holding a range of ideas about what is right and fair. 

The analytical props may seem deceptively simple, but they offer a window to complexity. They motivate why people choose to challenge or accept the status quo. They are how people contest it. And ultimately, they become the outcomes of this process of contestation. In other words, institutions, interests and ideas are the ends of means of contestation.  

This is why understanding contestation matters. It is, ultimately, the process that determines whose version of a desired future becomes lived reality. And we must study it regardless of our own pre-conceptions about what that future should look like.

Claire Mcloughlin

Claire Mcloughlin is a political sociologist with more than 15 years’ experience of researching, teaching, and advising international aid agencies on development. She is lead author and editor of The Politics of Development (Sage, 2024). She was director of research for the Developmental Leadership Programme (2017-2022). Best known for her work on the politics of service delivery, its effects on state legitimacy, and the role of non-state actors in providing services, she has published in numerous journals, including World Development, Governance, Public Administration and Development, and Development in Practice.

View all posts by Claire Mcloughlin