GOP WETDREAM

Could Trump actually get rid of the Department of Education?

Getting rid of the agency would cause a lot of harm and wouldn’t really change school curriculum.

by Ellen Ioanes

 Nov 20, 2024,

President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for the Department of Education will likely become clearer during Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearings. 

Scott Olson/Getty Images

part of Trump 2.0, explained
see all

While campaigning, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to dismantle the US Department of Education (DOE), on the basis that the federal education apparatus is “indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material.”

“One thing I’ll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington, DC, and sending all education and education work it needs back to the states,” Trump said in a 2023 video outlining his education policy goals. “We want them to run the education of our children because they’ll do a much better job of it. You can’t do worse.”

Trump on Tuesday nominated his former Small Business Administration head (and former wrestling executive) Linda McMahon to be the education secretary. Closing the DOE wouldn’t be easy, but it isn’t impossible — and even if the department remains open, there are certainly ways Trump and McMahon could radically change education in the United States. Here’s what’s possible.

Can Trump actually close the DOE?

Technically, yes.

However, “It would take an act of Congress to take it out,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, told Vox. “It would take an act of Congress to radically restructure it. And so the question is whether or not there’d be appetite on the Hill for abolishing the department.”

That’s not such an easy prospect, even though the Republicans look set to take narrow control of the Senate and the House. That’s because abolishing the department “would require 60 votes unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster,” Jal Mehta, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Vo

Without the filibuster rule, legislation would need a simple majority to pass, but senators have been hesitant to get rid of it in recent years. With the filibuster in place, Republicans would need some Democratic senators to join their efforts to kill the department. The likelihood of Democratic senators supporting such a move is almost nonexistent.

That means the push to unwind the department is probably largely symbolic. And that is the best-case scenario, Jon Valant, director of the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, told Vox. According to Valant, dismantling it would simultaneously damage the US education system while also failing to accomplish Trump’s stated goals.

Closing the department “would wreak havoc across the country,” Valant said. “It would cause terrible pain. It would cause terrible pain in parts of the country represented by congressional Republicans too.”

Much of that pain would likely fall on the country’s most vulnerable students: poor students, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. That’s because the department’s civil rights powers help it to support state education systems in providing specialized resources to those students.

Furthermore, much of what Trump and MAGA activists claim the agency is responsible for — like teaching critical race theory and LGBTQ “ideology” — isn’t actually the purview of the DOE; things like curriculum and teacher choice are already the domain of state departments of education. And only about 10 percent of federal public education funding flows to state boards of education, according to Valant. The rest comes primarily from tax sources, so states and local school districts are already controlling much of the funding structure of their specific public education systems.

“I find it a little bewildering that the US Department of Education has become such a lightning rod here, in part because I don’t know how many people have any idea what the department actually does,” Valant said.

Even without literally shutting the doors to the federal agency, there could be ways a Trump administration could hollow the DOE and do significant damage, Valant and Kettl said.

The administration could require the agency to cut the roles of agency employees, particularly those who ideologically disagree with the administration. It could also appoint officials with limited (or no) education expertise, hampering the department’s day-to-day work.

Trump officials could also attempt changes to the department’s higher education practices. The department is one of several state and nongovernmental institutions involved in college accreditation, for example — and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) has threatened to weaponize the accreditation process against universities he believes to be too “woke.”

Finally, Trump could use the department’s leadership role to affect policy indirectly: “There’s power that comes from just communicating to states what you would like to see” being taught in schools, Valant said. “And there are a lot of state leaders around the country who seem ready to follow that lead.”

Trump’s plans for the department will likely become clearer during McMahon’s confirmation hearings. She has been an advocate for the school choice movement, and posted praise for the hands-on education gained through apprenticeships shortly before her nomination was made public.

Update, November 20, 11:45 am ET: This story was originally published on November 13 and has been updated to reflect Linda McMahon’s nomination for education secretary.

Ellen Ioanes covers breaking and general assignment news as the weekend reporter at Vox. She previously worked at Business Insider covering the military and global conflicts.

Amid Legacies of Colonial and Anti-Trans Harm, Two-Spirits Struggle for Safety

This Trans Day of Remembrance, we are holding Nex Benedict and all Two-Spirit people in our hearts.

By Desiree Kane & Jen Byers , 

Truthout

November 20, 2024

People gather outside the Stonewall Inn for a memorial and vigil for Oklahoma teenager, Nex Benedict, who died after being bullied in a high school bathroom, on February 26, 2024, in New York City.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Nex Benedict was a Tulsa-area teen of Choctaw descent. His friends described him as an “adventurous little thing” who had a flair for creating art with a sense of ease. They called him “Roachie,” and he was loved.

After Nex’s death in February 2024, his portrait splayed across international news, vigils and social media posts. The picture shows Nex with deep brown eyes, short, loose brown curls grown out a little bit and a gentle smile. Nex has a crisp white shirt and black vest on. He looks like he’s dressed up for a dance or recital, at that cusp age of 16, when pre-teen clothes are out and quality vintage clothes become of interest.

On February 8, 2024, Nex collapsed and died at his home. The day before, he sustained a head injury during severe bullying at his school, Owasso High. The medical examiner ruled Nex’s passing a suicide after finding an antidepressant and an allergy medication in his system. This finding has been questioned repeatedly by local community members and national organizers.

“Regardless if it was caused by the fight or suicide, Nex died from bullying. Period,” said Olivia Carter, administrative coordinator for Oklahomans for Equality.

Nex’s death did not happen in a vacuum.

Related Story

Op-Ed |
LGBTQ Rights
Our Mourning for Nex Benedict Calls Us to Action Against Transphobia and Fascism
Nex Benedict, a gender-expansive teen in Oklahoma, died the day after enduring a beating in their high school bathroom.
By Kelly Hayes , TruthoutFebruary 23, 2024

In the immediate wake of his passing, a discourse erupted about anti-trans legislation, social neglect and health care inequity. But, in order to fully understand Nex’s death by bulling, this present history needs to be analyzed alongside histories ofthe boarding school system and the Indian Removal Act — policies that resulted in land theft, warfare, cultural genocide and widespread propaganda campaigns that stoked fear, dehumanization and colonial violence against Indigenous and Two-Spirit peoples.

Both the anti-trans campaigns and the boarding school system share a key component: the attempt of the far right United States political body to enforce a heteronormative, Christian identity on the public. And both the boarding school system and the anti-trans campaigns have yielded lethal results.

Since the introduction of anti-trans bathroom bills in 2015, anti-trans rhetoric and policy have been on the rise throughout the U.S. The increased vitriol against trans people has resulted in over 650 anti-2SLGBTQ+ (Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and additional sexual orientations and gender identities) policies being introduced in 2024 alone. As a high political watermark, the Heritage Foundation’s Christian nationalist Project 2025 paints a picture of the U.S. where transgender ideas are codified as “pornographic” and are thus minimized, if not eradicated, from public life.

Despite the majority of the U.S. population believing that trans people should be protected from discrimination, trans identities, culture and medical care have been used by the far right as an effective wedge issue in U.S. politics. This tactic of engaging a “hot-button” or controversial topic to drum up political fervor often includes pushing bigotry against a perceived mortal threat of “the other.”

This bigotry, often stoked by moral panic and misinformation, has been used to create support for policies that marginalize members of the public and restrict basic bodily autonomy. When enacted, othering policies limit, or even remove, the demonized community’s ability to get their basic needs (like gender-affirming care or a safe abortion) met above ground. Thus, these life-supporting services become less and less publicly available — especially to poor, Black, Indigenous, undocumented and/or rural communities.

This pattern (of social and political othering that results in the denial of material resources)is a key tactic of the violence that underpins settler colonialism in the U.S., and public institutions (like schools) are key enforcers of settler values. Thus, the history and impact of the settler-led school system on LGBTQ and Indigenous communities must be understood in order to fully unpack the broader circumstances surrounding Nex Benedict’s death.

Just Because It’s Legal Doesn’t Make It Right

Starting in 1819, the U.S. government instituted a sprawling schooling system consisting of 408 federal Indian boarding schools meant to “Kill the Indian, save the man.” Made possible by legislation such as the Indian Removal Act, these schools aimed to assimilate Native children into settler society by forcibly removing them from their families and raising them in group homes.

These schools were often run by abusive, state-funded Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox Christian religious groups, and they operated for over 150 years. Shortly after this, many of the religious schools became state-run. Structurally, these schools enforced cultural genocide via the tactic of assimilation, which continues to severely and negatively affect young people — especially (but not exclusively) Native children.

“This suppression … is linked to the claiming and the colonization of space. I see a direct link,” said Taté Walker, a citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, a Two-Spirit storyteller and co-founder of the Phoenix Two Spirit Community group. Walker is a well-respected Two-Spirit teacher and parent who educates on tribal issues, including how the modern U.S. school system is built on tactics from the boarding school era.

“Everyone who attends these schools is not receiving community wellness teachings, elder care, lessons about protecting the air and water,” Walker told Truthout. “We are not receiving information about how our past continually cycles itself. We’re not given information on how to prevent violent events from recurring — such as a kid [whose death] is deemed a suicide. It’s left at that ridiculously simplistic reasoning, when in fact it’s hundreds and hundreds of years of stochastic terrorism, transphobia, homophobia — all set up to make a violent environment for someone like Nex Benedict.”

Indigenous residential schools, whether run by the state or religious groups, were quite literally designed to strip away the languages, cultures and community structures of non-Christian peoples in order to make them more like European settlers. Children were forced to speak English, follow the Bible and live in church-sanctioned, cis-hetero, nuclear families. This forced assimilation is a key component of cultural genocide, and it is a clear violation of international law.

“It benefits the folks in power to keep down people with their own sense of power and medicine. They see beyond the status quo. They’re fighting for a society that recognizes justice and fights injustice, that all classes are able to exist,” Walker explained.

According to Native scholars, an estimated 40,000 Native children died in the boarding schools. In these schools, the administrators subjected children to consistent abuse, malnutrition, sexual assault, manual labor, beatings and neglect. Many children’s bodies were never returned to their families and were instead buried in unmarked, sometimes mass, graves. Hundreds, potentially thousands, of deaths were never reported at all, and innumerable family records were lost or destroyed. These graveyards can be visited all over the continent openly today.

In a 2022 report, the Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledged that there is “inconsistent Federal reporting of child deaths, including the number and cause or circumstances of death, and burial sites.” Burial grounds at the boarding schools epitomize this deadly system. The bureau describes “The intentional targeting […] of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children to achieve the goal of forced assimilation of Indian people” as “both traumatic and violent.”

A recent 2024 Department of the Interior report confirmed that at least 973 Indigenous children died at the boarding schools in the United States and were buried in one of at least 74 mass graves. The schools cost the public the equivalent of $23 billion in today’s dollars.

This report, and a similar investigation in Canada, highlight the scale at which settler governments and religious groups used these institutions as tools of cultural genocide and violent relocation efforts. Through assimilation-centered education and punishment, paid for by public funding and encouraged by federal policy, school officials enforced settler culture. All of this happened at the expense of Indigenous children’s lives and safety.

President Joe Biden acknowledged the scale of these harms in October 2024 when he issued a formal apology on behalf of the U.S. government for the violence of the schools.

Many survivors of these schools argue that, historically, there has truly never been a culture of care and commitment to the survival of Indigenous, especially Two-Spirit, youth in settler-led schools. Many believe the violence of the boarding school era still resonates today.

A Living History of Violence

Nex Benedict was an Indigenous trans youth, and the settler system appears to have not changed much since 1819. Oklahoma, where Nex Benedict lived, had 95 Indigenous boarding schools — the most known of any state in the U.S. There were at least five in the Tulsa area near where he lived.

So, when the public asks, “How did this happen?” The answer is that lawlessness, forced assimilation and Indigenous death have always been critical facets of the settler school system.

In Nex’s case, this history manifested in 2024 through neglect and legislation-backed prejudice. Administrators failed to step in during the year of bullying Nex suffered. Anti-trans politics created a moral panic around bathroom use. The demonization of LGBTQ-inclusive educational materials stoked ignorance and a devaluation of lives like Nex’s. Collectively, the far right policies in the Oklahoma education system and all the adults who uphold them are responsible for the hostile environment that killed Nex.

Shortly before Nex’s death, a 12-year-old named Eli, a gay child from Oklahoma, also died by suicide following extensive bullying that his school repeatedly failed to address.

“We are told, ‘If you are bullied so badly, why don’t you fight back?’ and in the next breath, ‘If you wouldn’t have fought back, this never would have happened.’ We are forced to play a rigged game,” said an Owassa High alum at a school board meeting in mid-March. “Let me be very clear, we will not allow this to continue.”

In Oklahoma, advocacy groups like Freedom Oklahoma and the ACLU continue to offer educational, social and legal opposition to anti-trans policies and social bigotry. They offer community support groups, volunteer training and gatherings in order to build collective power and solidarity among LGBTQ folks and their allies. But they have their work cut out for them.

In the week immediately following Nex’s death, the national youth crisis line Rainbow Youth Project reported receiving a surge of at least 1,000 calls — with a 200 percent increase specifically from Oklahoma. Many callers reported that they, too, were being bullied.
Going Forward

“The history of how Oklahoma was founded in lawlessness is important. The violence in how the state itself was created is critical in understanding why and how the current climate is adversarial when it comes to the State of Oklahoma and the Tribes, Tribal people,” explained Rebecca Nagle, Two-Spirit Cherokee author of By the Fire We Carry. “The Tribal schools the Indigenous kids were taken out of taught literature, art and global languages. The government put [Indigenous children] into the state-run school system that the kids exist within today. The state was started with ruthless lawlessness, not arts and collaboration, at its beginning.”

The modern-day attacks on trans health care have, similarly, influenced public policy, despite ample scientific and social research supporting trans rights. This disparity — between known, proven research and the lawlessness of anti-trans hatred — reflects a deeper political misinformation crisis that seeks to further reduce the autonomy and freedoms of marginalized people. Similar to the forced assimilation of Indigenous children in the boarding schools, the current anti-trans push is an attempt to lethally enforce a culturally-specific political structure onto a group of people that, simply, does not agree with or wish to live within it.

From 2023-2024, the Trans Legislation Tracker shows that, in Oklahoma, anti-trans bills have increased 46.3 percent — from 41 to 60. Oklahoma is a major node of the national anti-trans campaign, with 4.5 times more anti-trans bills than the average state and 8.8 percent of all anti-trans bills introduced this year. These bills restrict health care, access to education, sports, medical care and other aspects of public life — and, in many ways, seem to be a clear attempt to eliminate a people as a people, a core component of the UN definition of genocide.

When asked what Indigenous Two-Spirit youth in Oklahoma should do — be visible or remain in the closet — Nagle reckons with a difficult reply.

“Coming out and being visible is a very personal decision. There’s no telling young people what to do when it’s something so personal,” Nagle explains. “It can be very dangerous. I also know from my own experience that it can also be very dangerous to stay in the closet. It’s a very personal and important decision, and the stakes are just so very high in Oklahoma.”

Desiree Kane
Desiree Kane is a Miwok descendant and multimedia journalist focused on producing stories with a conscience at the intersection of Indigenous peoples and the environment. Follow Desiree on Bluesky.


Jen Byers
Jen Byers (they/she) is a visual and investigative journalist. Their work has appeared in Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Showtime, CalMatters and elsewhere. Follow Jen on Bluesky.

'I’m not here to fight': First trans member of Congress responds to Johnson’s bathroom ban

WOMENS BATHROOMS HAVE CUBICLES FOR PRIVACY

MENS HAVE URINALS  AND 2 - 3 CUBICLES

Sarah McBride, Delaware state senator and candidate for United States Representative, is interviewed by Reuters in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S., October 26, 2024. REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski

David Badash

November 20, 2024

U.S. Congresswoman-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) says she will “follow the rules” after Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson issued a ban on transgender women using women’s restrooms in the U.S. Capitol, a direct reaction to McBride becoming the first transgender member of Congress.

“I’m not here to fight about bathrooms. I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families,” McBride (photo, center), 34, a member of the Delaware state Senate, said in a statement. “Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.”

“This effort to distract from the real issues facing this country hasn’t distracted me over the last several days, as l’ve remained hard at work preparing to represent the greatest state in the union come January. Serving in the 119th Congress will be the honor of a lifetime – and I continue to look forward to getting to know my future colleagues on both sides of the aisle.”

“Each of us were sent here because voters saw something in us that they value. I have loved getting to see those qualities in the future colleagues that I’ve met and I look forward to seeing those qualities in every member come January. I hope all of my colleagues will seek to do the same with me.”

McBride’s comments followed a wave of targeted attacks on social media and in the news by U.S. Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC). Reports indicate that Mace posted over 260 messages on social media within 36 hours, specifically targeting McBride and transgender women more broadly.

Among them, a video in which Mace declared she will file legislation to make the ban on transgender women using women’s restrooms a national ban for all federal properties.

Speaker Johnson on Tuesday had insisted he was not interested in implementing any new rules, and was “not going to engage in this.”

“We don’t look down upon anyone,” he proudly told reporters, before adding, “a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman.”

Twenty-four hours later Johnson issued his ban.

“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings – such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms – are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson’s statement reads. “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol.”

“Women deserve women’s only spaces,” he concluded, not offering the same claim for men.

While Mace led the attacks against McBride and transgender people in general, Huffpostreports, “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) even suggested she would physically fight McBride for using the ladies’ room.”

Mace also waged her campaign against McBride in the news media, telling Forbes that the Congresswoman-elect was “absolutely” a “threat” to her personally. She claimed, “any man who wants to force his junk into the bathroom stall next to me or in a dressing room watching me, that is an assault on women.”

Forbes also notes, “McBride has never been accused of sexual misconduct or any kind of threatening behavior.”

The South Carolina Republican’s baseless allegations against McBride come just a few years after Mace began her congressional career by claiming to be pro-LGBTQ.

“I strongly support LGBTQ rights and equality,” Mace said in 2021. “No one should be discriminated against.”

“I have friends and family that identify as LGBTQ,” she added. “Understanding how they feel and how they’ve been treated is important. Having been around gay, lesbian, and transgender people has informed my opinion over my lifetime.”

Mace, as Punchbowl News co-founder Jake Sherman reports, is also fundraising off her attacks.



Watch the video above or at this link.

Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity ...

WordPress.com

https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com › ...

PDF

Butler, Judith P. Gender trouble : feminism and the subversion of identity / Judith. Butler. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Originally ...

256 pages

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Gay Old Communists

Suriname’s Debt Crisis Shows Us How Global Capitalism Works

With rich Amazon forests and fewer than a million people, Suriname is one of the few countries that absorbs more carbon than it produces. But the former Dutch colony is now being forced to implement destructive austerity by global financial interests.

By Sharda Ganga, Jerome Phelps 

November 18, 2024

Source: Jacobin


A meeting of civil society group, Projekta Suriname. Image Credit: Projekta Suriname



Suriname is a former Dutch colony in South America, best known for the pristine Amazon forests that cover 93 percent of the country and make it one of only three countries that absorb more carbon emissions than they produce. It has recently become more interesting to the rest of the world for two main reasons: the fact that it is experiencing one of the world’s worst debt crises, and the discovery of offshore oil and gas in immense quantities.

The people of Suriname find themselves living in a dual reality. In the present, there is a brutal austerity program imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), wreaking the usual havoc on people’s lives. At the same time, politicians assure them that the country has a bright future ahead in which abundant oil revenues will solve all problems and benefit everyone.

Suriname is an important case study in the way financialized neocolonialism works in the twenty-first century. A feminist perspective on debt can supply us with invaluable tools for thinking about the destructive impact of debt and finding ways to combat it.
Debt and Neocolonialism

Suriname’s fertile land and navigable rivers have for centuries been profitable for powerful foreigners. Dutch settlers took over coffee, sugar, and cotton plantations from the British in 1667 and established what was arguably the most brutal slave economy in the region. However, the Dutch colonizers did not stray very far into the forested interior, where indigenous people and Maroon communities of people who escaped slavery defended their autonomy.

Yet even before the country gained its independence from the Netherlands, US commercial interests were transforming the landscape. Vast tracts of forest were flooded, forcing the Maroon Saamaka community from its lands in order to build the Afobaka Dam, which would generate hydroelectric power for the bauxite factory of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa).

When Suriname was no longer sufficiently profitable to Alcoa, the company packed up and left, having managed to sell the dam back to Suriname. Thanks to unfair deals that doubled electricity prices and left Suriname exposed to swings in commodity markets, the country even owed Alcoa more than $100 million for electricity that was produced using its own natural resources.

This debt reached crisis proportions in the 2010s with the spending spree of the Dési Bouterse administration. Private lenders and international financial institutions queued up to make loans, often at high interest, amid the deep crash of global commodity prices. Although Bouterse is currently on the run from a twenty-year sentence for murdering political opponents, the Surinamese people still remain liable for the debts and at the mercy of anyone willing to lend money.

Having said no to the conditions set by the IMF in 2018, the government was forced to borrow from a variety of capital market instruments and multilateral creditors such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Chinese state, again at high interest rates. After the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Suriname defaulted in November 2020.

States are not able to declare bankruptcy in the way that individuals or companies can. Suriname is considered too wealthy to access the Common Framework, the limited and inadequate process for debt relief and restructuring set up by the G20 in the wake of the pandemic. The result, for Suriname and countries across the Global South, is that precious resources needed for health and education drain away to pay the interest on loans.

When countries default, they have to negotiate with their creditors to reduce their debts. Private creditors receive 46 percent of external debt payments from the Global South and own 38 percent of Suriname’s debts. These actors are not used to taking losses when their risky loans go wrong. Private creditors held out in debt-restructuring negotiations with Suriname for an amazingly sweet deal that amounted to canceling just 2 percent of the debt owed. When interest is taken into account, Debt Justice estimates that bondholders will make profits of 80 percent.

Even worse, the bondholders have laid claim to Suriname’s future oil revenues through a value-recovery instrument. If all goes according to plan, this will line their pockets with a staggering windfall of 30 percent of future oil revenues, up to a total of £689 million. Meanwhile, Suriname will continue to spend 27 percent of its government revenues on external debt payments over the next five years.

In order to safeguard this windfall, the agreement with the bondholders is dependent on Suriname changing the legislation of its sovereign wealth fund by December 2024. Fifty years after Suriname’s official independence from the Netherlands, foreign bodies are once again dictating how Suriname uses its resources and what legislation it should pass. This is the new form of colonialism, using debt to gain access to resources.
Debt-Fueled Austerity

The result, for the people of Suriname, is austerity. The IMF demanded savage cuts, based on a flawed methodology that prioritizes capital flows over human rights and the sustainability of life.

These cuts have had a deep impact on people’s lives, plunging the country into political, economic, and social chaos, with strikes and uprisings. Health care has collapsed, medicines are scarce, and operating rooms are empty for lack of materials and qualified personnel. Essential workers such as teachers and health care workers have left the country in droves, poached by institutions in the Netherlands, the former colonizer.

These austerity policies have had a particularly harsh impact on Surinamese women and LGBTQ people, who must pick up the burden of care as the state withdraws. Such feminized care work, disavowed and unpaid, has always been an essential precondition for capitalist profits, even though it is ignored in economic models or deemed “unproductive” in contrast with “productive” paid labor. Debt crises bring this to the fore, as carers have to find money to pay for privatized health services, the skyrocketing prices of essentials, or taxis for children to attend school after school buses and wider networks of public transport have been cut.

Susan Doorson of Women’s Way Foundation highlights the situation of LGBTQ women who face the prospect of going into debt to pay for mental and sexual health services: “How many people in Suriname die because they don’t have access to services? They have to think, am I going to feed the family today or am I going to get this checked out?”

Historic neglect of rural indigenous areas means that health care services are concentrated in the capital, Paramaribo, which is a fifteen-hour boat journey from some communities. According to Audrey Christiaan, ambassador of indigenous cultural group Juku Jume Maro, indigenous communities that “don’t have the luxury of public transport” because of spending cuts and lose access to vital services. In the event of a medical emergency, they face the dramatic expense of hiring a plane to bring people for treatment, which in some cases can be too late.

Austerity forces carers to work longer hours, in more precarious conditions, for lower salaries. Women are disproportionately employed in the public services that face redundancies due to IMF demands to balance the books. The informal sector jobs in which women and LGBTQ people often work also shrink as people cut back on discretionary spending. Inflation in Suriname has meant an 11 percent reduction in purchasing power over the space of a year.

As a result, carers are less able than ever to bear the sudden costs that fall upon them and have to go into debt themselves, as the cycle of debt moves from the state to the household level. At the same time, they have less and less time and resources to provide the unpaid care that service cuts increasingly load onto them, and that society depends on.

A Global Phenomenon

This scenario is not confined to countries like Suriname. We have also seen it play out for communities in the Global North, especially since the 2008 crash, as the governments of rich countries inflict austerity policies with similar narratives to justify them. The crisis of care is now a global phenomenon. As Nancy Fraser has argued, by pushing the unpaid carers on which it depends to the edge of survival while destroying the natural environment it pillages for free resources, global financial capitalism is increasingly cannibalizing the conditions of its own profiteering.

Debt-driven austerity is destabilizing countries across the world. In Suriname, unprecedented protests filled the main square of Paramaribo. But they had limited impact: the Surinamese government has little power in an unfair global system, and it has continued to implement the diktats of creditors and the IMF, despite their deep domestic unpopularity.

As Lucí Cavallero and Verónica Gago have explained, drawing on the experiences of the Ni Una Menos feminist movement in Argentina, debt-driven exploitation enforces obedience at the same time as it generates profits. In contrast to the expense of maintaining a colonial army, debt generates profits even as it controls and coerces.

The same tool that drains resources from communities simultaneously works to make that process of extraction invisible, individual, and shameful, in stark contrast to the collective exploitation of workers on the factory floor. Whereas unionized workers have strength in numbers for their collective struggle against identifiable exploitative employers, the individual stands alone with their debts before the invisible ranks of banks and creditors, while society tells them that it is their own fault.

States also stand alone against their creditors and the IMF, fearing the judgments of credit-rating agencies and stigmatized by a moralizing narrative that debts are the result of irresponsible borrowing, wastefulness, and corruption. When Burkina Faso’s president Thomas Sankara attempted to organize African states to stand in solidarity against neocolonial debt, he was swiftly deposed in a coup and murdered, allegedly with the support of the French state.

A Feminist Issue

We need a feminist perspective to understand and resist the new wave of debt-based expropriation. Feminism has always worked to make the private sphere politically visible and to build forms of collective solidarity against individualized stigma and exploitation. Financialized capitalism is enveloped in mystification: its workings seem opaque even to specialists, and incomprehensible to the people at the sharp end. Movements like Ni Una Menos have focused on demystifying this process, taking debt “out of the closet” and “challenging its power to shame,” in Cavallero and Gago’s powerful words.

We need an internationalist feminism of the 99 percent that can make connections between the impact of the debt and care crises on communities, women, and LGBTQ people in the Global South and North alike. The overlapping crises we face — debt, climate, and care — can only be addressed through international coordination by governments held accountable to and by their people.

Protests against austerity and irresponsible borrowing in the Global South must be combined with demands for solidarity and justice in the Global North. Examples include new laws in the UK and New York that would prevent private creditors from using the courts to demand payment in full from countries in default.

2025 will be a jubilee year, part of a long tradition of periodic debt amnesties that led to large-scale debt cancelation following the global Jubilee 2000 campaign. Twenty-five years on, we need internationalist feminist solidarity to drive the wave of civil society mobilizations that are demanding debt cancellation and a just international debt system.


Sharda Ganga  is the director of Projekta Suriname, a civil society organization focusing on the interlinkage between human rights, democracy, and governance, with a specific focus on women's rights and gender equality. She is also a playwright and newspaper columnist.

It's time for Democrats to declare class warfare

Thom Hartmann
November 18, 2024

ALTERNET

If my hypothesis from yesterday — that Democrats best way to win elections and regain political power is to engage in class warfare against the GOP and the billionaires that fund it — the immediate question is, “How?”

The last century has seen two presidents engage in class warfare in a big and direct way that not only won them multiple elections but also altered the electoral map of America: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. There are multiple lessons to learn from both.

When FDR came into power in March of 1933, the nation was in shambles because of a decade of Republican mishandling of the economy. In the early 1920s, Republican President Warren Harding dropped the top income tax rate from 91% down to 25% and loosened oversight of Wall Street.

The short-term result was an explosion of riches at the top, referred to as “The Roaring 20s,” and violent actions against attempts to form labor unions. The longer-term result was the infamous Black Tuesday of October 29, 1929 which kicked off the Republican Great Depression.

President Roosevelt correctly identified America’s morbidly rich, who’d seized control of the GOP after the end of the Taft presidency in 1913, as the cause of the financial disaster and proclaimed that they and their captive Republicans had declared class war against average working class Americans.

ALSO READ: Trump finds a new lawman is who even more lawless than he is

“For out of this modern civilization,” Roosevelt told America, “economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. … It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself.”

He used the language of class warfare; as with all wars, the first step is to identify the enemy. For FDR it was the morbidly rich of his era who weren’t content to just run their businesses and make money but also lusted for the political power they’d been given during the 1920s by Republican presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
“These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America,” Roosevelt proclaimed. “What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”
He paused for a moment, then thundered, “Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!”

The crowd at Madison Square Garden roared when he said that. They knew that Republican politicians had worked hand-in-glove with wealthy industrialists to suppress unions, evade taxes, and accumulate fortunes beyond anything ever seen in America. That the GOP had been running an often-violent class war against them for at least the past decade.

And they were over it. Over the greed, over the theft, and over the self-righteous proclamations that the Constitution protected their avarice. Average working people knew these “economic royalists” weren’t patriots; they were looters, vandals, and political arsonists. FDR gave voice to their anger, disillusionment, and disgust.

“In vain,” Roosevelt said, “they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”

Republicans had declared class warfare; FDR, like he would later do with the Japanese and Germans, led the charge to fight back and defeat them.

And defeat them he did (even in the face of an assassination attempt); by the end of his presidency, American oligarchs had gone back to doing business and getting rich, largely avoiding politics and keeping their noses clean.

Until, that is, President Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court and Powell began the process — from the bench — of turning America back into a full-blown oligarchy like Hoover had done in the 1920s.


The Powell Memo and the Court’s Bellotti decision (written by Powell) set the stage and outline the battle plan for the Reagan Revolution, an all-out declaration of class war against average Americans and the Democrats who’d historically defended them.

In the 1980s, Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 74 percent down to 27 percent (while repeatedly raising taxes on working-class people’s wages, tips, and Social Security), kicking off an explosion of billionaires. He and other Republican presidents and members of the Supreme Court followed up by:

— Ending enforcement of our anti-trust laws and gutting our environmental regulations.

— Killing off our media guardrails like the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule, along with ending ownership limits on newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations and networks.
— Fighting every effort to reduce or end student debt.
— Opposing every program proposed to broaden access to healthcare coverage.

— Attacking our right to vote.
— Privatizing Medicare with the Medicare Advantage scam (Social Security is next).
— Assailing environmental regulations that protect us and our children from cancer and other diseases.

— Going to the mat to defend hundreds of billions in annual subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and its oligarchs.
— Deregulating social media (Section 230), now taken over by rightwing billionaires.
— Packing our courts with reliable toadies for giant corporations and the wealthy.
— Stripping over $50 trillion from the working class since 1981, handing that money to the morbidly rich to stash in their offshore money bins.

— Rejecting every effort to raise the national minimum wage.
— Most recently, Trump congratulated Musk on his union-busting success.



Through this entire period, Democrats have refrained from employing FDR’s class war rhetoric to fight back. Instead, they’ve worked hard to make life better for working class people when in power and tried to limit the damage from Republican proposals and policies when they’re out of power.

This is why Vice President Harris’ claims that Democrats are here for the average person while Republicans want more tax cuts and deregulation failed to catch fire during this past election; there was no rhetoric of warfare. Instead, astonishingly, Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney and kept saying that she’d give Republicans “a seat at the table.”


As billionaire Warren Buffett famously confessed:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

It’s far past time to take the gloves off and start punching.

Democrats have become so rusty, so wary of class warfare, that they haven’t even identified a term or metaphor to describe the rightwing billionaires for whom the GOP fronts.


From Democratic President Grover Cleveland in the 1880s saying the rich had working people under their “Iron heel” to the early 20th century when they were called Robber Barons, Democrats have had names for Republicans and the billionaires who own them.

FDR called them economic royalists. Teddy Roosevelt called them fat cats, malefactors of great wealth, parasites, and plutocrats. I’ve been calling them the morbidly rich, but there’s almost certainly a more evocative phrase out there that could be applied to greedy billionaires by this generation of progressives.

After all, elite conservatives and billionaires haven’t hesitated to use “othering” language in their war against Democrats.

Reagan and Republicans since have called us pointy-headed intellectuals, ivory tower elites, eggheads, limousine liberals, champagne socialists, latte liberals, the wine and cheese crowd, coastal elites, tax and spend liberals, bleeding hearts, do-gooders, tree huggers, environmental wackos, libtards, communists, and even feminazis.

And how do Democrats describe Republicans? “Our friends on the other side of the aisle.”

Screw that. It’s time to declare war.

And war requires a clear delineation between our side and their side, between the good guys and the enemy. Nobody is going to rush to the ramparts against somebody we’re “happy to work with on a bipartisan basis”: as Newt Gingrich taught Republicans in the 1990s and they’ve held to with a religious fervor, there can be no quarter against the other side if you want to take and hold power.

Class war sounds ugly, but it’s exactly what Republicans and their billionaire backers have been waging against working class Americans for 43 years now. It’s damn well time to fight back by declaring a class war of our own.

In an authoritarian regime it’s important to control the news — and here we go

Thom Hartmann
November 17, 2024 

ALTERNET

Kash Patel (Photo via AFP)


— Is changing the Democratic Party the way to remake our Democracy?

Donald Trump only got about a million more votes than he did in 2020, but Kamala Harris appears to have received somewhere between 6 and 10 million fewer votes than Joe Biden did that year. For the over two decades that I’ve been writing and on the radio and TV, I’ve argued that when Bill Clinton embraced Reagan’s neoliberalism in 1992 (and Obama maintained that position) the Democratic Party had taken a fatal turn to the right. I’ve written two books that cover it, in part, as well: The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America
and The Hidden History of the American Dream. It appears that millions of voters essentially said, “I’m not going to vote for that nutcase Trump, but Harris isn’t speaking to the explosion in my cost-of-living expenses so to hell with her, too.” Joe Biden campaigned with Bernie Sanders and won; Kamala Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney and repeatedly said she wanted to give Republicans “a seat at the table,” which may well have been a fatal error. She thought she could pick up moderate Republicans, but there’s apparently not such a thing anymore since Fox “News” and the massive rightwing media ecosystem has come to dominate the American news and opinion landscape.

Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, Sherrod Brown, and many other longtime Democrats have been pointing to this pre-1992 truth: if the Democratic Party is to win, it has to go back to its FDR/LBJ roots and become the party of the bottom 90 percent, instead of embracing those with a college education, movie and rock stars, and progressive billionaires like Mark Cuban. God bless them all, but Dems really need to reinvent themselves as the blue-collar party and repudiate much of the Clinton/Obama agenda of low taxes, free trade, and private/public partnerships (like Obamacare).

Amazingly, even The New York Times’ conservative columnist David Brooks agrees, writing: “The Democratic Party has one job: to combat inequality. Here was a great chasm of inequality right before their noses and somehow many Democrats didn’t see it. Many on the left focused on racial inequality, gender inequality and L.G.B.T.Q. inequality. [This is actually an untrue GOP talking point.] … As the left veered toward identitarian performance art, Donald Trump jumped into the class war with both feet. His Queens-born resentment of the Manhattan elites dovetailed magically with the class animosity being felt by rural people across the country. His message was simple: These people have betrayed you, and they are morons to boot.” Amen. Finally, check out this troubling article from data scientist Stephen Spoonamore raising questions about manipulation of vote totals in the swing states in a way that doesn’t appear in the non-swing states. I’m agnostic on this for the moment, but it’s worth reading; he’ll be on my program Monday.


— In an authoritarian regime it’s important to cow and control the news, and here we go. Kash Patel, widely rumored to be Trump’s main pick for FBI director, has a message for reporters and opinion writers who insist on continuing to call Trump a fascist or otherwise slander/defame him and his followers: “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media. Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections – we’re going to come after you... Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice.”

According to The Columbia Journalism Review, Trump has already sued The New York Times (naming reporters Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner) and Penguin Random House (one of my publishers) and CBS’s 60 Minutes show for $10 billion each.

As I predicted, he appears to be following the Putin/Orbán strategy of bankrupting media outlets and reporters (rather than using cops and billy-clubs), presumably both to cow others into submission and to make the media properties available to be purchased by his allies (sort of like what just happened with The Onion buying Infowars out of bankruptcy).


Steve Bannon added his thoughts, essentially threatening or warning the journalists at MSNBC: “Weissman, you were on TV with MSNBC and all the producers, MSNBC. Preserve your documents. Ari Melber and all you hosts. Preserve your documents. All of it. You better be worried. You better lawyer up. Some of you young producers, you better call mom and dad tonight. Mom and dad, ‘You know a good lawyer?’ Lawyer up. Lawyer up.”

This is a dangerous time for anybody writing about politics. Orbán and Putin even go after random citizens who criticize them on social media; will Trump go that far? And will progressives shut up in the face of this kind of intimidation? Stay tuned…

— Speaking of authoritarianism, Texas Republicans want to outlaw websites that discuss how to get an abortion. Jessica Valenti tells the story at Abortion, Every Dayon Substack about the Republican lawmakers in Texas (and around the country) who are trying to pass legislation that would imprison people who put up websites that can be viewed in Texas (including hers) with information on abortion. They argue that abortion information is not free speech protected by the Constitution. I’d add that if the Comstock Act is enforced by the new Attorney General (as JD Vance has demanded) next year, all sorts of information about abortion will become criminalized, in addition to the devices and drugs that can be used for both abortion and birth control.


— Sarah Hurst’s Russia Report on Tulsi Gabbard will make your toes curl. I’ll let you click on it and read it yourself; it’s all about her repeated embraces of Russia and Putin. Which makes some people wonder out loud why Trump would push such objectionable candidates; surely the Senate will protect us from such people, right?

But if Trump really wants to pull a Hitler and seize absolute control of the nation within a matter of a few months, his first move would be to either negotiate or force a recess of the Senate and simply “recess appoint” all of his cabinet nominees. No hearings, no tough questions, no FBI or other background checks, no Democratic politicians’ input. He has this authority under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: if there’s a disagreement between John Thune and Mike Johnson about when to adjourn, “...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he [the president] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

They could agree to disagree; that way they could both evade responsibility. On the other hand, if Thune simply gives in to Trump’s recent demand for recess appointments (as he told reporters yesterday he was considering), Thune can simply adjourn the Senate, something that hasn’t happened in decades; Trump can then simply do his own recess appointments (it could be done in a single hour) under the Constitution’s provision: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” or he could just appoint them as “acting“ officials.


He did that during the last year of his presidency, and went way beyond the legal time limit for several; he flagrantly broke the law last time with over 15 cabinet members and Republicans were unwilling to call him on it, although he never started that way. This will be our first clue that the nation is no longer a constitutional republic with anything resembling checks and balances, but has become an oligarchic dictatorship like Hungary.

— Blueprint of destruction: Is Trump following Orbán’s and Putin’s road to power? M. Gessen, an expert on authoritarianism, writes in The New York Times: “When Orban was re-elected, he carried out what Magyar calls an ‘autocratic breakthrough,’ changing laws and practices so that he could not be dislodged again. It helped that he had a supermajority in parliament. Trump, similarly, spent four years attacking the Biden administration, and the vote that brought it to the White House, as fraudulent, and positioning himself as the only true voice of the people. He is also returning with a power trifecta — the presidency and both houses of Congress. He too can quickly reshape American government in his image. … Kamala Harris’s campaign, of course, tried to warn Americans about this and a lot more, labeling Trump a fascist. … It’s not just what the autocrats do to stage their breakthrough, it’s how they do it: passing legislation (or signing executive orders) fast, without any discussion, sometimes late at night, in batches, all the while denigrating and delegitimizing any opposition.”

The article is definitely worth a read, chilling as it is. Gessen even gets into the role of Project 2025 in facilitating the transformation of our American form of government into one with a single strongman president at its pinnacle. This does not bode well for America.


— Former Trump administration officials who turned on him are preparing to flee the country. The Washington Post is reporting: “A retired U.S. Army officer who clashed with senior officials in Donald Trump’s first White House looked into acquiring Italian citizenship in the run-up to this month’s election but wasn’t eligible and instead packeda ‘go bag’ with cash and a list of emergency numbers in case he needs to flee. A member of Trump’s first administration who publicly denounced him is applying for foreign citizenship and weighing whether to watch and wait or leave the country before the Jan. 20 inauguration. And a former U.S. official who signed a notorious October 2020 letter suggesting that emails purportedly taken from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden could be part of a ‘Russian information operation’is seeking a passport from a European country, uncertain about whether the getaway will prove necessary but concluding, ‘You don’t want to have to scramble.’”

Reports (like this one from the Post) suggest that Trump has an “enemies list” of at least 600 people, much like Nixon’s, and he intends to go after everybody on the list on day one. Will he, like Nixon, just harass people with IRS audits? It seems more likely based on his own words that he’ll launch criminal and civil actions to jail or bankrupt his perceived enemies and those who have written or said things that have offended him.

Along those same lines, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wants “justice” against health officials: “Dr. [Anthony] Fauci lied to the American people, abusing his power and position and role, a very powerful role paid for by the American tax people. He lied, and many, many people died. … People that perpetuated and continue to perpetuate these crimes need to be prosecuted, and that needs to be starting in the next administration, and I’m pretty sure our next attorney general will do that, and I look forward to seeing that happen.”

Washington, DC is very, very much on edge right now; I got a call Friday morning at 5:30 in the morning from the CEO of a major DC-based progressive media outlet who’d just gotten off the phone with a Clinton colleague; both are considering leaving the country. This is getting real very, very fast.


— Are Republicans coming for healthcare for both retired and working people?Millions of people signed up for Affordable Care Act insurance policies over the past three years because of hefty subsidies contained in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Those subsidies expire at the end of this year, and Republicans are signaling that they won’t be renewed, meaning that premiums could go from $200 a month to as much as $2400 a month. Meanwhile, Project 2025 has called for private corporate Medicare Advantage plans to become the default option for people turning 65 and signing up for Medicare. Once a critical threshold is hit (currently more than half of seniors are on the Advantage plans) it’ll be fairly easy for a Republican congress and president to end legacy Medicare; once that happens, Advantage plans, no longer having competition from real Medicare, will almost certainly become more expensive and offer less coverage.

Meanwhile, Raw Story is reporting: “Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters earlier this week that the GOP is looking to use the filibuster-evading reconciliation process to pursue cuts to ‘mandatory programs’—a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” Republicans have been talking about this since the ReaganRevolution, but never actually tried (other than Reagan raising the retirement age from 65 to 67). Get ready.

— State-level authoritarians fall in line with Trump. Oklahoma’s Channel 4 (KFOR) TV News reports: “Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters emailed leaders in Oklahoma school districts on Thursday telling them they would be required to play their students and parents a video showing Walters blaming the ‘radical left’ and ‘woke teachers unions’ for ‘attacking’ religious liberty, then inviting students to join him as he prays for President-elect Donald Trump.” Walters also reportedly purchased five hundred Trump Bibles for Oklahoma schools. Welcome to the Brave New World. Compounding a religious grift with a financial one; breathtaking.