Scientists have backed away from the worst-case climate scenario — and the best one too

There’s a range of possibilities for how much the earth will warm. A new study narrows the likely window by the largest margin in decades.

By Umair Irfan Jul 31, 2020, 

Oil refineries like this one in Corpus Christi, Texas, are heating up the planet. Roschetzky Photography/Shutterstock


The basic mechanics of climate change are simple: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. More carbon dioxide means more heat is trapped across the Earth, causing it to warm up.

But scaled up over the entire planet, these physical processes interact in a myriad of complex and sometimes unexpected ways. The Arctic reflects sunlight back into space. Clouds in some circumstances trap heat, and in others, they cool the region beneath them. Forests store a big chunk of carbon, but they’re being burned, cut down, and dying off from warming. The ocean soaks up a huge amount of heat and carbon dioxide, but it can’t absorb it forever. And these effects are not all linear; some may taper off as the planet heats up while others may suddenly accelerate.

That’s why scientists for decades have struggled to answer the basic question of how much the earth will eventually warm up for a given amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The term for this parameter is equilibrium climate sensitivity. The classic way of framing it is asking what happens if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to levels prior to the industrial revolution. Back in the 1800s, it was about 280 parts per million. Today, it’s about 413 ppm. Some estimate it could reach 560 ppm as soon as 2050 without major mitigation steps.

A team of 25 scientists from around the world recently took a stab at answering the question of how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to carbon dioxide and came up with range of possibilities. Their results, published July 22 in Reviews of Geophysics, showed that the planet would most likely warm on average between 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 7 degrees Fahrenheit (2.6 degrees Celsius and 3.9 degrees Celsius) if atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double.

This is still a wide span, but it’s much smaller than prior estimated range of 2.7 and 9.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius) that had been the reigning benchmark for decades.

The new, narrower estimate for climate sensitivity has huge implications, not just for climate science, but for how humanity prepares for a warming world. It shows that the worst-case-scenario is not as dire as previously thought, but also that the best possibilities are still quite grim. In particular, it means that it will be almost impossible to hit the main target of the Paris climate agreement, limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, by chance; it will require aggressive action to reduce emissions with even less margin for delay.
Why climate sensitivity is so important to our understanding of climate change

In 1979, the National Research Council put together a report looking at the ways increasing carbon dioxide emissions would impact the world. The researchers behind the report understood even then that it would be a complicated task.

“In order to address this question in its entirety, one would have to peer into the world of our grandchildren, the world of the 21st century,” they wrote. “A complete assessment of all the issues will be a long and difficult task.”

It was this report that came up with the climate sensitivity range between 2.7 and 9.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius). Now that we’re in the 21st century, how much has our understanding of climate science improved?

On many fronts, the gains in climate science have been vast and substantial. New measurements from ice cores, satellite monitoring, and sophisticated computer models have yielded new insights in the the climate of the past, present, and future. Scientists are even getting close to being able to see carbon dioxide emissions in real time.Scientists have found that the record flooding in Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 was worsened by climate change. Yin Bogu/Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images

However, until recently, the estimates of climate sensitivity barely budged. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a team of scientists assembled by the United Nations, came up with the same estimate climate sensitivity in 2014 as the National Research Council came up with in 1979. But not for lack of trying.

“There have been a number of research studies over the years that have looked at the climate sensitivity range,” said Donald Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois and an author of the 2014 IPCC report who was not involved in the new paper, in an email. “The best of those studies had not been able to reduce this sensitivity from the range much differently than the traditional range of 1.5-4.5 C.”

Such a wide range for climate sensitivity makes it much harder to plan for the future, from how much oceans will rise, to where we can grow crops best, to what places will become too hot to inhabit.

So a new smaller climate sensitivity range is significant. Since it’s a foundational parameter of climate models, it can yield a more precise range for what to expect as the world continues warming.
It took decades of advances in science to narrow the boundaries of climate sensitivity

Then how did this team of researchers chip away at a problem that has vexed climate scientists for more than 40 years?

It wasn’t any one finding in particular. Rather, the team took the colossal body of research that has built up in the intervening decades to create their sensitivity estimate. They drew on paleoclimate records dating back 3 million years, observational temperature records over the last 150 years, and a new generation of climate models.

“The single biggest factor was the ability to combine estimates from these three independent lines of evidence,” explained Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute and a coauthor of the new paper.

Baked into these lines of evidence is a better understanding of underlying phenomena like how albedo — the reflectiveness of the earth’s surface — changes as the air warms, how aerosols form and reflect sunlight, and how natural variability in the climate factors in.

Hausfather added that in recent years, scientists have gained to insight into feedback loops in the climate that can enhance warming. That means that over time, greenhouse gas emissions will pack a bigger punch for the climate.

“We’d expect a bit more warming, all things being equal, in the future from emissions than we have today,” he said.

The resulting estimate of climate sensitivity — 4.7 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (2.6 degrees Celsius and 3.9 degrees Celsius) — may seem small, but it represents a drastic shift from the world as we know it today. In an editorial in the Hill, Hausfather pointed out that during the last ice age 20,000 years ago, the planet was on average 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) cooler than today. That led to so much ice across the planet that global sea levels were 300 feet lower than they are today.Scientists examine an ice core drilled from a glacier. These sample provide a window in the past climate of the planet. Philippe Desmazes/AFP via Getty Images

It’s also important to remember that the climate is already changing, providing some real-world results for how the climate system responds to carbon dioxide. The world has warmed more than 1 degree Celsius since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Sea levels have risen more than 8 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating.

Even if humanity were to halt emissions now, there is still inertia in the climate system and the planet would likely continue warming by a certain amount.

And while much of climate discussions center on changes in average temperatures, those shifted averages obscure the fact that there can be drastic increases in the extremes. Scientists have found signals of human caused emissions in the growing intensity of hurricanes, the frequency of heat waves, and the drying of some forests, a key ingredient in wildfires.

Could scientists narrow the boundaries of climate sensitivity even more?

“It’s difficult,” Wuebbels said. “I would expect though that after another decade (or so) of climate changes and the observations of climate relevant processes that the range should be able to be reduced further.”

However, the world can’t wait another decade for better information to act, and Ploy Pattanun Achakulwisut, a climate scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, said the new findings are a call to action.

“This study is an important milestone for the climate science community, and only serves to strengthen what the public and policymakers have known for decades: that we need to transition away from fossil fuels,” she wrote in an email. Achakulwisut added that the results emphasize the need for leaders to create policies to speed up the move toward low-carbon energy.
Human action remains the greatest uncertainty for the global climate

While the new climate sensitivity estimate gives the world a clearer vision of the future, it is a future that can still be altered by our actions.

Indeed, the biggest factor shaping the future of the climate, and the greatest source of uncertainty, is what humans will do about it in the coming years. Power plants, farms, aircraft, trucks, buildings, deforestation, and other human-sources collectively spew carbon dioxide into the air at a rate of 2.6 million pounds per second, making humans the dominant source of changes in the climate over the past 50 years. And that rate is accelerating: More than half of all human greenhouse gas emissions occurred in just the last 30 years.

The question is how long this will continue and when the curve of carbon dioxide emissions will bend. However, like climate sensitivity, there has been some narrowing of what to expect in recent years. Current human greenhouse gas emissions are now much less likely to follow the most pessimistic trajectory, which assumes unchecked growth of fossil fuel combustion and little to no efforts to limit climate change.

Student call for action on climate change at protest in Brussels, Belgium. Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

The dirtiest sources of energy are now declining, and some parts of the world are making progress to cut emissions while others have signed onto aggressive targets. But emissions are still rising, and limiting climate change demands cutting them drastically, and soon.

A 2018 report from the IPCC examined what people would have to do to meet the more aggressive target under the Paris climate agreement, limiting warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. The report concluded that the world’s greenhouse gas emissions need to be half of where they are now by 2030, zero by 2050, and thereafter emissions would actually have to be removed from the atmosphere to stabilize the climate.

That goal is almost certainly out of reach. The emissions gap between where the world is and where it needs to be is only getting wider.

And now with the latest estimate of climate sensitivity, the low-end estimate of climate sensitivity has gone up, meaning there’s virtually no chance of staying below 2 degrees Celsius of warming if carbon dioxide concentrations reach 560 ppm. Even with the inherent uncertainties of these forecasts, these factors point toward a need for more concerted action to curb greenhouse gases.

“When it comes to climate, uncertainty is not our friend because the damages of climate change increase non-linearly,” Hausfather said. “Because there are some uncertainties we are never really going to be able to get rid of, it really suggests we need to be cautious about our emissions.”

The problem of dangerous levels of global warming can still be solved, but the easiest options are off the table, and the longer we wait, the harder it gets.

Covid-19 is exposing inequalities in college sports. Now athletes are demanding change.

Hundreds of athletes are threatening to skip the upcoming season, unless economic and racial issues are addressed.

By Anya van Wagtendonk Aug 2, 2020, 

UCLA’s Elisha Guidry and USC’s Tyler Vaughns at a November 2019 Pac-12 game in Los Angeles. Jayne Kamin-Oncea/Getty Images


Several hundred college athletes have announced their intention to sit out the coming season as the coronavirus pandemic continues across the United States, and as confirmed case rates rise in almost every state.

Sunday, hundreds of football players from the Pac-12 Conference, which is made up of 12 Western schools, announced they would not participate in training camps or games this fall unless their conference negotiates with them on certain demands, including the implementation of health and safety procedures, creating protections for other conference sports, and addressing racial injustice.

That communal action — organized under the hashtag #WeAreUnited — describes the new push by college players as one of racial and economic justice. With respect to the coronavirus, it notes that Black college athletes, like Black Americans in general, will be disproportionately placed at risk of infection if conference leaders do not implement measures that will protect players against Covid-19.

But the athletes argue disparities in coronavirus outcomes also highlight existing inequalities that disproportionately hurt Black players, particularly those from low income homes. The players point out that they bring significant economic value to their conferences and colleges, while receiving almost no compensation themselves beyond scholarships that are contingent upon strict requirements of behavior and performance.

“Because NCAA sports exploit college athletes physically, economically and academically, and also disproportionately harm Black college athletes, #WeAreUnited,” the athletes’ statement reads in part. “Because we are being asked to play college sports in a pandemic in a system without enforced health and safety standards, and without transparency about COVID cases on our teams, the risks to ourselves, our families, and our communities, #WeAreUnited.”

According to Sports Illustrated, the players spent more than a month organizing before presenting their demands; they hope the threat of a boycott will lead to a “formal negotiation process” with their conference.

“The coronavirus has put a spotlight on a lot of the injustices in college athletics,” Valentino Daltoso, an offensive lineman at the University of California Berkeley, told Sports Illustrated. “The way to affect change and the way to get your voice heard is to affect the bottom line. Our power as players comes from being together. The only way to do this is to do something collectively.”
Briefly, what the Pac-12 athletes want

The Pac-12 athletes have four areas in which they want to see their conference make critical changes to its policies: health, non-revenue generating sports, racial justice, and financial matters. The changes would apply to both scholarship and walk-on athletes.

The health demands would primarily require the conference to make changes to limit the effects of the coronavirus, like allowing players to opt out of the season for the duration of the pandemic without losing their eligibility, and enacting minimal safety standards that cover “Covid-19 as well as serious injury, abuse and death.”

Second, the athletes want all sports governed by the conference to be given equal weight. They demand an end to “excessive pay” for NCAA administrators and coaches, including Larry Scott, the Pac-12 commissioner, arguing the reductions would allow for the funding of sports that do not generate as much revenue as football or basketball. They also suggest institutions with means use a portion of their endowments to cover some sports costs.

The group also wants to see the conference put some of its money — 2 percent of its revenue — toward supporting financial aid packages for Black students, as well as toward community initiatives. They propose starting a yearly summit for Black Pac-12 athletes, and demand the conference fund a a council populated by student-selected experts that would work toward eradicating racial inequality.

Finally, the group wants major changes to how revenue is distributed. They demand that half of the conference’s revenue be evenly distributed among its athletes and that players be allowed agents and the right to use their own names, images, and likenesses to earn money. And they have asked for guaranteed medical coverage for athletes for six years after their eligibility ends, for issues related to their sport, as well as the freedom to volunteer and pursue activities outside of sports as they choose while on their teams.
Race and economic issues have long been a part of college football

The unified front presented by the Pac-12 athletes represents a near-unprecedented level of solidarity among college athletes, who bring billions of dollars into their conferences and campuses, but face stringent requirements and receive no compensation beyond educational scholarships.

As Vox’s Jane Coaston has explained, there is a significant overlap between college sports and issues of racial justice, especially in football programs. Football powers entire athletic departments, Coaston writes, which translates to money and prestige for universities.

And college football is disproportionately fueled by Black athletes: Half of all Division 1 football players are Black, with higher numbers in the SEC and some other conferences. For this reason, as the Pac-12 statement says, issues that affect athletic programs disproportionately affect Black student athletes.

In part because of these demographics, college football players are uniquely poised to demand change on their campuses. While they do take on risk when they speak out against their programs, particularly with respect to losing their scholarships, they also are powerful when united, a fact schools are increasingly acknowledging.

“[C]ollege football programs are beginning to respond to demands from players — players on whom those programs rely,” Coaston writes. “That’s because in real-world terms, black college football players are part of an infrastructure that brings in billions of dollars to universities, cable networks, and sponsors — an entire industry, in fact.”

But college players have had limited access to the wealth that they accrue for their programs. They cannot benefit from being turned into a video game character, for example, or from sales of jerseys with their own names across the back.

The NCAA has repeatedly argued that players receive compensation in the form of their athletic scholarships, but those are also contingent on stringent standards of behavior and on performance, as well as on not getting injured.

As Coaston points out, college athletes attempting to leverage their power to address social issues is not new. In the 1960s and ’70s, players at institutions like Michigan State spoke out against racism, risking both college scholarships and, sometimes, professional career opportunities.

But the current moment is a singular one, with its confluence of a major civil rights movement and a global pandemic. As the coronavirus has shined a bright light on differential access to health care, education, and safe jobs — among many other issues — student athletes have found themselves with a unique opportunity to leverage their earning power to enact lasting change.

Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

The US ambassador to Brazil reportedly asked Brazilian officials to help Trump’s reelection

Brazilian news reports say the ambassador asked for a “favor.” Democrats are demanding answers.

By Anya van Wagtendonk Aug 1, 2020, 

US ambassador Todd Chapman exits a 2018 meeting in Ecuador. Dolores Ochoa/AP


The Trump administration has been accused of attempting to pressure another foreign country into helping Trump’s reelection prospects, according to a letter from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

That letter cites Brazilian news articles that report US Ambassador to Brazil Todd Chapman pressured members of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration to lower ethanol tariffs in order to support President Donald Trump’s reelection efforts.

In the letter, Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel demands Chapman explain an article in which the ambassador is said to have asked for the tariffs to be lowered as a “favor” from the Brazilian government to the Trump reelection campaign.

“Iowa is the largest ethanol producer in the United States…and could be a key player in Trump’s election,” an article in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo reads, according to the letter. “Hence the importance – according to Chapman – for the Bolsonaro government to do the U.S. a favor.”

Beyond the report in O Globo, the New York Times notes, another Brazilian outlet, Estadão, published a similar story based on its own reporting, with its journalists finding that Chapman had made the request, and was rebuffed by government officials.

Alceu Moreira, a Brazilian congressman, also told the Times that Chapman “had made repeated references to the electoral calendar during a recent meeting the two had about ethanol.”

Engel has called for Chapman to respond to the reports by August 4, and for him to provide “any and all documents referring or related to any discussions” with Brazilian officials.

If the reports are accurate, the letter states, Chapman’s actions could be in violation of the Hatch Act, which prevents federal employees from engaging in certain political activities, such as partisan campaigning for candidates.

A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that Chapman’s efforts were part of a policy of pushing for lower tariffs in general, not narrowly focused on supporting an incumbent presidential campaign.

“Allegations suggesting that Ambassador Chapman has asked Brazilians to support a specific U.S. candidate are false,” the statement reads. “The United States has long been focused on reducing tariff barriers and will continue do so.”
Foreign interference marred the 2016 election. Requests for interference led to impeachment.

The reports are also of concern because of how closely they echo the request that led to Trump’s impeachment.

Last July, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favor” during a phone call in which he asked the leader to look into the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of then-candidate, now presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden. In that call, Trump appeared to condition military aid badly needed by Ukraine on Zelensky’s willingness to search for information that might be used to discredit Biden.

A congressional investigation into that call revealed the ways the Trump administration used traditional diplomatic channels — most notably the office of the US ambassador to the European Union — to forward that goal.

It isn’t clear whether Trump was involved in Chapman’s reported pressure campaign about ethanol, but as Vox’s Zack Beauchamp wrote during 2019’s impeachment hearings, the testimony of another of Trump’s ambassadors — former US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland — showed a willingness on Trump’s part “to use US foreign policy as a tool to cement his own hold on power.”

And that has Trump critics concerned about the Brazilian reports, with Engel warning Chapman in his letter, “Elections in the United States are for the American people and the American people only to decide.”

In delivering that warning, the letter explicitly links Chapman’s reported campaign to the 2016 election, the outcome of which foreign governments repeatedly attempted to sway, according to the results of a Senate investigation.

“Given the events of 2016, it is all the more important for U.S. ambassadors serving our country abroad to not insert themselves into U.S. elections or encourage foreign government officials from any branch of government to do so,” the letter reads.

This warning follows intelligence reports that find Russia has actively worked to disrupt November’s elections — as well as the Democratic presidential primary. But politicians and experts have warned that the US is not as prepared as it ought to be to combat such interference, leaving it vulnerable to meddling attempts not just by adversaries, but by also by Americans who, as Engel writes, “should know better.”

COVIDIOT
Gohmert Says He Will Take Hydroxychloroquine For COVID-19, Flouting FDA Warning

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 06: U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) waits for U.S. President Donald Trump to speak to the media, one day after the U.S. Senate acquitted on two articles of impeachment, in the East Room of th... MORE
By Zoë Richards
|
July 30, 2020 8:43 a.m.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said after testing positive for coronavirus Wednesday that he will take an anti-malaria drug as treatment, flouting the wisdom of experts who have cautioned against its use for COVID-19.

“My doctor and I are all in,” Gohmert said when asked if he had considered taking the hydroxychloroquine during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday night.


Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert told Sean Hannity Wednesday that "my doctor and I are all in," when asked if he had considered a hydroxychloroquine regimen following an announcement earlier in the day that the congressman had tested positive test for coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/xwPONXJc0D
TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) July 30, 2020


Gohmert said that he had received a text from a friend who was a doctor who just found out that he also had the virus “and he started the regimen too.” Gohmert said that he will begin taking the anti-malaria drug “in just a day or two.”

The remarks follow news that Gohmert, who has often refused to wear a mask around the Capitol, announced that he had tested positive for coronavirus.

In spite of warnings from the Federal Drug Administration and his own task force of health experts, President Donal Trump has continued to promote hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the virus, even retweeting Monday a video that falsely declared the drug was a cure for COVID-19. The video featured Stella Immanuel, a woman who call herself a doctor who has history of making false statements — including a claim that endometriosis is caused by sex with demons in dreams.

In a briefing Tuesday, when asked about doctor whose video was removed by several social media companies for spreading misinformation, Trump said Immanuel’s was a “very important voice” and called her “very impressive.”

In an ABC interview Tuesday, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said hat he is in agreement with the FDA, who recently revoked the emergency use authorization for the drug as treatment.

“The overwhelming, prevailing clinical trials that have looked at the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine have indicated that it is not effective in coronavirus disease,” Fauci said.

This Daily Show ‘Tyranny Check’ Is A Must See
POSTED BY ELLEN -7836.60PC ON JULY 30, 2020 ·


The Daily Show has brilliantly showcased Fox News hosts’ hypocrisy by juxtaposing their comments on the tyranny of federal agents at the Bundy ranch with comments about the agents in Portland.

If you have forgotten the Bundy lawbreakers Sean Hannity and Fox News championed, nobody summed up the situation better than Jon Stewart. Naturally, after promoting armed insurrection against the U.S. government (under President Obama), Hannity played the victim for being criticized. You may recall that Fox’s support for Bundy evaporated after he was outed as a racist (which Fox almost surely knew beforehand).

But you don’t really have to know all that to appreciate the hypocrisy, including the pièce de résistance at the end.

It’s been a sad and depressing day. I can't think of a better way to close it out than with some laughs at Fox News’ expense.

Trump Campaign Adviser Dodges Questions About Foreign Assistance
POSTED BY ELLEN -ON AUGUST 02, 2020 ·


Trump campaign senior adviser Jason Miller, failed to give a straight and complete answer when asked on Fox News Sunday whether the Trump campaign or the administration has received or would refuse to receive foreign assistance.

You’d think the campaign of any legit nationalist, which Donald Trump markets himself as, would make a big show of denouncing and disavowing any foreign assistance. That’s doubly true when Trump calls the Mueller investigation into Russian interference, with the goal of helping Trump get elected, a hoax.

Instead, Miller suspiciously waffled and deflected on Fox News Sunday today:

WALLACE: Can you state flatly that neither the Trump administration nor the Trump campaign has received any information from foreign groups, foreign nationals, about either Joe Biden or his family, and can you state flatly that neither the administration nor the campaign will accept foreign assistance?

MILLER: Chris, that's a silly question. I mean, the folks who have actually taken foreign assistance were the Clinton campaign four years ago. I mean the entire shady dossier they put together was from a British spy.

No, we're going to go and beat Joe Biden fair and square here, absolutely. But I think you should have asked the same question to his prospective running mates in Senate Duckworth and Karen Bass because, just as we saw four years ago, it was the Democrats who took foreign assistance.

WALLACE: But can you flatly state that the Trump campaign and the administration will not accept foreign assistance this time?

MILLER: Chris, I said that's an absolutely silly question. We're going to go and win this race fair and square and it's the Democrats who are going to --

WALLACE: I'm just asking for an -- I'm asking for an answer. It's a -- it's a yes or no question, Jason.

MILLER: Chris, there is no foreign assistance that's happening in this campaign. But I would ask you to make sure that the Democrats aren't going to do what they tried to pull four years ago because that's exactly -- they're going to try to find every possible way to cheat and steal this selection, 100 percent.

Miller's statement, that “there is no foreign assistance that’s happening” is a bit weaselly, too, as it speaks only to the present. But Wallace promised he’d ask Joe Biden if he has the chance to interview him and then moved on.

Wallace also deserves credit for challenging Miller early on when he claimed that “the power center in this Biden campaign and what a potential Biden presidency would look like is the radical left wing mob. It's Bernie Sanders. It's AOC. It's Ilhan Omar.”

Wallace interrupted to say, “Joe Biden has not come out for Medicare for all. Joe Biden has not come out for the Green New Deal. Joe Biden has not come out for defund the police. I understand that that's your talking point, but it's not so.”

Then, after Miller went on to claim, “no voter” wants to “vote for the guy who wants $4 trillion in tax increases and his own version of a Green New Deal and wipe out the American energy sector,” Wallace pressed the point by noting that multiple polls show Trump losing to Biden.

But as good as those moments were, they will almost surely be overshadowed by Fox's Trump cheerleaders disregarding and/or justifying his alarming deference to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

You can watch Miller's dodgy deflections below, from the August 2, 2020 Fox News Sunday.

NEO NAZI COVIDIOTS UPDATE
Dozens Of Police Injured In Berlin Protests Against Virus Curbs


By AFP News
08/02/20

Some 45 police officers were injured in a wave of weekend demonstrations in Berlin including protests against coronavirus restrictions, police said as protesters gathered again in smaller numbers on Sunday.

The unruly protests, in which many demonstrators failed to wear masks or respect social distancing rules, have sparked a chorus of condemnation including calls for tougher penalties against those who violate restrictions aimed at curbing transmission of the deadly virus.

A total of 133 people were arrested during Saturday's protests, which included a huge "day of freedom" demo against coronavirus restrictions, police said in a statement on Sunday.

The arrests were for offences including resisting police officers, breach of the peace and the use of unconstitutional symbols.

Three officers required hospital treatment, police said.

Around 20,000 people took part in the "day of freedom" demonstration, the majority not covering their nose and mouth or respecting Germany's 1.5-metre (five-foot) social distancing requirement.

The crowd, a mixture of hard left and right, and conspiracy theorists, shouted "We are the second wave" as they converged on the Brandenburg Gate, demanding "resistance" and dubbing the pandemic "the biggest conspiracy theory"

Police began dispersing the crowds in the late afternoon, but hundreds of protesters remained at the Brandenburg Gate late into the evening.

Police have launched legal proceedings against organisers for not respecting virus hygiene rules.

In a separate anti-fascist demonstration in the southern Neukoelln district, protesters threw stones at police officers, let off fireworks and damaged two police vehicles and a local party office.

Several officers were injured while dispersing the crowd, including three who were treated in hospital after being hit in the face by shards of glass.

Arrests were also made at smaller unofficial protests.

A total of 1,100 officers were deployed during the day.

Protesters claiming that 'the cure is worse than the disease' Photo: AFP / John MACDOUGALL

A few hundred protesters gathered to the west of the Brandenburg Gate on Sunday, according to an AFP photographer at the scene, with the majority wearing masks and observing social distancing guidelines.

Despite Germany's comparatively low toll, authorities are concerned at a rise in infections over recent weeks and politicians took to social media to criticise Saturday's rally as irresponsible.

"Yes, demonstrations should also be possible in times of coronavirus, but not like this," Health Minister Jens Spahn said.

"Distance, hygiene rules and masks serve to protect us all, so we treat each other with respect."

Others on Sunday expressed concern at Germany's rising virus numbers and called for higher penalties for those who break the rules.

"Those who deliberately endanger others must expect that this will have serious consequences for them," Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told national news agency DPA.

Bavarian premier Markus Soeder, meanwhile, warned in an interview with the Bild am Sonntag newspaper that now was "not the time for new relaxations or naive carelessness".

The second wave is "practically already here", Soeder said. "It is creeping through Germany."

Soeder also said he was opposed to football matches with spectators, as officials from Germany's Bundesliga prepare to gather this week to agree guidelines for the return of fans.

Saturday saw 955 new infections in Germany -- a level which the country had not seen since May 9, according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) disease control agency.

New infections rose only slightly by 240 in the last 24 hours, according to data published Sunday by the RKI. However, the relatively low figure was due to limited reporting by local authorities during the weekend.

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.

Len McCluskey praised by Labour MPs for ordering Unite funding review

Exclusive: Unite leader disagreed with Labour paying damages to antisemitism whistleblowers

THE GUARDIAN AUGUST 2, 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/02/len-mccluskey-praised-by-labour-mps-for-ordering-unite-funding-review

 Len McCluskey, whose union has given Labour around £7m since January 2019. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer 

The leader of Unite, Len McCluskey, has been praised by left-leaning Labour MPs for ordering a review of the union’s political donations after Keir Starmer’s decision to pay damages to former staff turned antisemitism whistleblowers.

Ian Lavery, the party chair under Jeremy Corbyn, is one of three former shadow ministers who have told the Guardian they support the union’s general secretary for re-examining whether to donate to Labour in the wake of the six-figure settlements.

Their interventions will increase tensions between the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and Labour’s leader following the latter’s decision to apologise and pay damages to seven staff who claimed they had been defamed by senior party figures after taking part in a BBC Panorama documentary on antisemitism.

It comes amid growing speculation about the future leadership of the UK’s three biggest unions – Unite, Unison and the GMB – which are responsible for a majority of Labour’s funds.

McCluskey, whose union has given Labour around £7m since January 2019, said on Saturday that paying the damages was an “abuse of members’ money”. He told the Observer: “A lot of it is Unite’s money and I’m already being asked all kinds of questions by my executive. It’s as though a huge sign has been put up outside the Labour party with ‘queue here with your writ and get your payment over there’.”

Lavery, who was also shadow minister for trade unions under Corbyn, said: “What Len says is extremely important. I have had people asking me from Unite if it is right that members’ money is used to finance Keir’s legal challenges and pay compensation when the advice that the party allegedly had was that the party was in a very strong position to defend the claims.

“People have got to be accountable and responsible. You cannot expect unions to pump millions of pounds into the party if the party isn’t accountable.”

Another former shadow cabinet minister agreed: “Starmer is on warning that he must work with everyone across the movement and cash has to be accounted for. The lurch to the right will not be paid for with union subs.” Another said: “Len said what a lot of us have been thinking.”

The party settled with the ex-staffers as part of an attempt to draw a line under the antisemitism row. However, Labour officials warned the shadow cabinet last month that mounting legal action related to antisemitism could cost the party hundreds of thousands of pounds over the next year.

One Starmer loyalist dismissed McCluskey and Lavery’s criticisms. “They are fighting a battle over antisemitism they could not win when they were in charge and now they want Keir to make the same mistakes. It is a silly position to take and deeply insulting for many Jewish members,” they said.

McCluskey, 69, also said he intends to stay in charge at Unite until his tenure ends in 2022, amid growing speculation he could stand down early as well as electioneering from some of his close union allies.

Meanwhile the Unison leader, Dave Prentis, has announced that he will be stepping down at the end of the year, while Tim Roache stood down as general secretary of the GMB in April amid allegations of misconduct.

The “Big Three” unions, which represent more than 3 million workers, not only contribute most of Labour’s funds, but also sponsor MPs and influence votes on policy and party rules.

Although the top of the union movement is still dominated by middle-aged white men, there are female or BAME candidates standing for each position.

Speculation McCluskey may step down had increased after United Left, the faction which has dominated Unite, held a ballot last month and decided to back the union’s assistant general secretary, Steve Turner, to become the next leader. Sharon Graham, Unite’s organising director said to be separate from McCluskey’s inner circle, is also planning to stand.

After the GMB announced it had received an anonymous letter containing claims about Roache’s conduct, the union asked a QC to launch an independent investigation into allegations of wrongdoing. Roache vehemently denies the allegations.

Nominations for his successor will close next month. Rehana Azam, the union’s national secretary who has co-ordinated its response to the Covid 19 crisis, is expected to be a popular frontrunner. Gary Smith, the union’s secretary in Scotland, is also expected to stand.

The inquiry, conducted by Karon Monaghan QC, is expected to hang heavy over the election, following claims that other executives and staff were involved in inappropriate spending.

The union said: “The need for a full, transparent and independent investigation following a number of very serious allegations made by way of anonymous correspondence received by the union has been agreed.”

In a statement released in April, Roache said: “I have spent 40 years defending people based on evidence and the right to natural justice. This anonymous letter affords me neither.”

Candidates standing for the top job in Unison, where two-thirds of members are women, include Margaret Greer, who would become both the first female and the first black general secretary of the UK’s biggest union if she wins. Glasgow-born Christina McAnea, who is currently assistant general secretary, is also standing.

Two other BAME candidates are also standing. Roger McKenzie, an assistant general secretary who is on the left of the union, and Hugo Pierre, a Socialist party member. Nominations open on 10 August.


UK
Unite chief Len McCluskey fires warning shot over Labour anti-Semitism payout

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER, CALLS THE TUNESunday 2 August 2020, 2:22am

BROTHER Len McCluskey has warned the Labour Party.Credit: PA Archive/PA Images

The chief of Labour’s biggest union backer said his organisation would “no doubt” review its financial support in the wake of the decision to offer payouts to whistleblowers who accused the party of failing to tackle anti-Semitism.

General secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, used an interview with the Observer to issue a warning to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer after the party agreed to pay “substantial damages” to whistleblowers who contributed to a TV expose of its handling of anti-Semitism.

Mr McCluskey, an ally of former leader Jeremy Corbyn, said the payouts were “an abuse of members’ money”.

He told the paper: “A lot of it is Unite’s money and I’m already being asked all kinds of questions by my executive.

“It’s as though a huge sign has been put up outside the Labour party with ‘queue here with your writ and get your payment over there’.”

Under Mr Corbyn’s leadership, the party was dogged with allegations that it had failed to take action over members accused of promoting anti-Semitism.

Seven former employees from the party’s governance and legal unit, who were responsible for the investigation of allegations of misconduct by party members, sued Labour after it issued a press release describing them as having “personal and political axes to grind”.

The legal action followed the broadcast in July 2019 of a BBC Panorama programme titled Is Labour Anti-Semitic?


Jeremy Corbyn being sued after comments on Labour anti-Semitism damages settlement

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer took over the running of the party in AprilCredit: Joe Giddens/PA

The party has refused to disclose how much the settlement would end up costing, but the Telegraph reported that fees and damages were likely to amount to nearly £375,000.

Sir Keir’s predecessor Mr Corbyn called the decision to settle “disappointing” and claimed it was a “political decision, not a legal one”.

Mr Corybn said his team was advised while he was leader that the “party had a strong defence”.

Panorama reporter John Ware is taking legal action against the Islington North MP following the remarks.

Labour declined to comment on Mr McCluskey’s donation review threat, but Sir Keir’s spokesman previously said all three candidates in the final of the party’s leadership contest, which concluded in April, had agreed they wanted to see the case settled.


Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked after sharing article containing anti-Semitic conspiracy theory


The spokesman told reporters last month: “I think it is worth remembering that during the leadership contest, all three candidates – Rebecca (Long-Bailey), Keir and Lisa (Nandy) – said, and all pledged at the Jewish Labour Movement hustings, that they would seek to settle this issue and that also they believed the party had not taken the right approach at the time.”

In his interview, Mr McCluskey also warned Sir Keir over the direction of the party, suggesting it would “constitute a problem” if the former director of public prosecutions moved away from his leadership campaign pledges.

His position included keeping left-wing policies adopted during the Corbyn regime, such as higher taxes on the wealthy, abolishing tuition fees and public ownership of rail, mail, energy and water.


Home Secretary demands social media giants act faster over hate speech after 'abhorrent' Wiley posts

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was critical of the decision to pay damages to ex-staff.Credit: Hollie Adams/PA

Sir Keir has so far ruled out speculating what will be in the next election manifesto, but has regularly emphasised that the 2019 Labour platform was defeated at the polls in December.

Mr McCluskey said: “He has to recognise that the ship he is sailing, if it lists too much to the right, will go under.

“We’ll have to wait to see how the situation unfolds.

“Unite is financially a very powerful and strong union. We have a political fund that is the largest in the whole of Europe.

“So of course, my members would expect that we are influential in that respect.”

The 70-year-old also ruled out standing down as Unite leader before his term is due to come to an end in April 2022.

Georgia camp outbreak shows rapid virus spread among children
2020/8/1

©TheAtlantaJournalConstitution

#KEEPSCHOOLCLOSED #COVID19CLOSESCHOOLS 
#CORONAVIRUSCLOSESCHOOLS

SEE IT IS NOT 'INVISIBLE' AS TRUMP SAYS IT IS

This transmission electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, isolated from a patient in the U.S., emerging from the surface of cells cultured in the lab. - NIAID/TNS/TNS

ATLANTA — COVID-19 spread quickly among unmasked youth at YMCA camp, CDC finds.

Some 260 cases of the coronavirus have been tied to attendees and staff at a North Georgia YMCA children’s camp in June, according to a report released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one of the largest known superspreading events in the state.

The report details how COVID-19 spread rapidly among children and teens within the camp and raises questions about the effectiveness of safety protocols as school districts and colleges contemplate reopening for in-person instruction this fall.

YMCA Camp High Harbour, identified in the report as Camp A, suffered an outbreak at its Lake Burton location in late June. As of July 10, about 85 cases of the virus had been linked to the camp, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution previously reported, a figure that has since tripled.

The CDC study of 597 campers and staff from Georgia found the camp did not follow its guidance to require campers wear masks, though staff did.

Three-quarters of the 344 attendees and staff for whom the CDC was able to obtain test results tested positive for the virus.

The CDC said the overall attack rate of the virus was 44%, though the agency acknowledged that’s an undercount because it includes more than 250 for whom they had no results.
“This investigation adds to the body of evidence demonstrating that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and, contrary to early reports might play an important role in transmission,” the report said.

Brian Castrucci, CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, a Maryland nonprofit that assists public health agencies and a former epidemiologist in Georgia, said the report is a warning for local school districts and others about the potential for spread in congregant settings.

“This should show you how actively kids can transmit it,” he said. “If you have a low prevalence in your community, you can start to do things. If you have rampant and rapid community spread, then there is no opening school, there is no opening colleges. It is not going to work.”

GEORGIA OK’D CAMPS WITH RESTRICTIONS

Gov. Brian Kemp initially allowed day camps to open for the summer as part of the state’s broader reopening plan. An executive order in May later allowed overnight camps to operate, but outlined health and hygiene guidelines, including temperature checks and a requirement for campers and staff to have a negative COVID-19 test within 12 days of the start of camp.

Though many camps opted not to open, some, including High Harbour, did.

Spokespeople for Kemp did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Dr. Harry J. Heiman, clinical associate professor at the Georgia State University School of Public Health, said spread of the virus was growing in June, presenting a high likelihood the virus would spread in a camp setting.

“We know that congregate settings, particularly indoor congregant settings, are among the highest risks,” he said.

High Harbour followed the governor’s executive order, the federal report said, but the camp did not follow CDC recommendations for universal masking of campers or for increased ventilation in buildings. Staff were required to wear masks, the report said.

“Relatively large cohorts sleeping in the same cabin and engaging in regular singing and cheering likely contributed to transmission,” the CDC said. “Use of cloth masks, which has been shown to reduce the risk for infection, was not universal.”

The CDC said its investigation is ongoing and will attempt to identify specific sources of exposure, the course of the illness and “any secondary transmission to household members.”

“Physical distancing and consistent and correct use of cloth masks should be emphasized as important strategies for mitigating transmission in congregate settings,” the report said.

STATEMENT OF REGRET

The YMCA did not make anyone available for an interview. In a written statement, Parrish Underwood, chief advancement officer for the YMCA of Metro Atlanta, said the organization now regretted holding the camp.

“We made every effort to adhere to best practices outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Camp Association,” and the governor, Underwood said.

“Attending Camp High Harbour is a tradition numerous generations of Y families look forward to every summer,” Underwood’s statement said. “Many of these individuals reached out to our staff to express their desire for us to open our residential camps in an effort to create normalcy in their children’s lives due to the detrimental impact of COVID-19. This weighed heavily in our decision to open, a decision in retrospect we regret.”

The YMCA said it notified parents that a counselor tested positive for COVID-19 on June 24. The camp told parents they could pick up their children early. The YMCA closed its Lake Burton and Lake Allatoona locations.

The YMCA said the counselor passed required health screenings, as did all other campers and staff.

Parents who have spoken to the AJC have said they did not think the YMCA showed enough urgency. The camp was not immediately closed. Parents were given the option of picking up their children over a period of a few days before the camp closed for the season.

FEVER, HEADACHES AND SORE THROAT

The CDC study offered some caveats to the infection rates. Georgia suffered high rates of spread at the end of June, and some of the infections might have occurred prior to or after the camp.

Information about the conditions of infected campers and staff also was limited, and the report did not detail the severity of infections.

But the report said of the 136 cases with symptom data, about a quarter reported no symptoms. Of the three-quarters reporting symptoms, fever, headache and sore throat were the most common.

The median age of campers was 12 and staffers was 17. There were seven staffers between the ages of 22 and 59.

Fifty-one kids, or roughly half, of the children aged 6 to 10 tested positive. About 44% of children aged 11 to 17 tested positive and a third of the remaining people from 18 to 59 tested positive, the report said.

Cases of COVID-19 tend to be milder for children and young adults than for the elderly, but the disease isn’t without risk.

There have been 12,290 confirmed cases among children 5 to 17 in Georgia, with 165 hospitalizations and one death, an analysis of state data shows.

To date, 186,352 people in Georgia have tested positive for the coronavirus, including about 4,000 announced Friday. There have been 3,752 deaths, including 81 reported on Friday.

GEORGIA IN THE ‘RED ZONE’

Knowledge of transmission between children and adults is not well understood, but health experts have told the AJC they fear infections in children and adults can easily spread to more vulnerable people.

Though people over 60 make up the largest cohorts of hospitalizations and deaths, a recent Emory University study said children and adults under 60 are much more likely than the elderly to spread the disease to others.

Some schools are pushing forward with August opening plans, while allowing home instruction or blended in-person and distance learning.

Other systems, including Atlanta Public Schools, announced plans to delay the start of the school year and to begin instruction online amid substantial community spread of the virus.

On July 24, the CDC published guidance endorsing the full reopening of schools, citing risks to children’s health and education that could be inflicted by not having schools open for in-person instruction. That guidance came after pressure from President Trump, who has called for full reopening of schools.

The CDC guidance called for keeping students in small groups, staffed by a single teacher and to use outdoor spaces for learning. The guidance includes recommendations for masking and other hygiene protocols and plans for when a student contracts the virus.

But many independent public health experts, while acknowledging the importance of in-school instruction, have been critical of the new CDC guidance.

Heiman, the Georgia State professor, said schools often have poor ventilation. Reopening for in-person instruction endangers students and their family members and school staff.

Georgia is one of 21 states outlined in a White House task force report in the “red zone” for coronavirus spread. That report has recommended the state mandate masks and close bars, nightclubs, entertainment venues and put stricter limits on indoor dining and groups.

Kemp has so far decided not to mandate masks, though he has encouraged face coverings. He also has balked at new restrictions on the movement of business and people.

A group of more than 2,000 medical professionals have called on Kemp to implement the White House task force’s recommendations and to allow local jurisdictions to enact stricter measures.

“Many of us have said all along that unless we can get the level of COVID-19 down in communities, it is not safe to open schools and colleges,” Heiman said. “This (report) certainly reinforces that.”

———

©2020 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, Ga.)

How do we de-Trumpify America?



Published August 1, 2020 By Paul Rosenberg, Salon- Commentary


Despite the deep hole he’s in, Donald Trump could still win re-election, as we are constantly reminded. If he loses, some observers warn, there could be considerable trouble, even violent resistance. But perhaps the biggest problem facing us in the medium-to-long term is what happens if Trump loses. In particular, what do we do to undo Trumpism? Not just to counter the destruction Trump has wrought, but the decades-long preconditions that made his election possible, if not almost inevitable.

This article first appeared in Salon.

This question was raised recently by Foreign Policy in Focus editor John Feffer, whose 2017 book, “Aftershock: A Journey Into Eastern Europe’s Broken Dreams” I reviewed here. That book was deeply steeped in the difficult challenges of rebuilding democratic culture and, unsurprisingly, Feffer’s recent column cited several historical signposts to illuminate the challenge we face — the end of the Confederacy, Nazi Germany and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. All those efforts to rebuild were “flawed in various ways” he wrote — the first and last most dramatically. But learning from them “might help us avoid repeating the mistakes of history.”

The thrust of Feffer’s argument is twofold: First, that Trump is backed by an amalgam of forces, including “the bulk of conservative civil society,” and even if he’s defeated, Trumpism — the particular articulation he’s given to those forces — will survive the election and continue to be an existential threat. It “could succeed in finishing what Trump started — disuniting the country and destroying the democratic experiment — unless, that is, the United States were to undergo a thorough de-Trumpification.” In fact, he notes that “a post-election insurrection is not out of the question.”

Trump himself may be expendable, from the far right’s point of view, but Feffer writes that “Trumpism — which lies at the intersections of racial and sexual anxiety, hatred of government and the expert class, and opposition to cosmopolitan internationalism — is not so easily rooted out.” In part, that’s because it’s “a political chimera with the head of an establishment machine and the body of a radical social movement.”
Second, Feffer argues that we must learn from the examples of the past, flawed though they might be in many ways, in order to do better. While I agree with Feffer’s core argument, both his choice of past examples and the lessons drawn from them are less satisfying. That’s not a reason to abandon his approach, but to pursue it more robustly.

Two of the examples — Nazi Germany and Saddam’s Iraq — are classic examples of “pathocracies,” which I’ve written about before, and thus led me to reach out to two experts I’ve consulted in the past: Ian Hughes, the author of “Disordered Minds: How Dangerous Personalities Are Destroying Democracy,” and therapist Elizabeth Mika, who wrote perhaps the most politically crucial chapter of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” (Salon review here).

“Pathocracy is the situation where dangerously disordered personalities predominate in positions of power.” Hughes said. “Such individuals’ propensity for violence and greed, their incapacity for basic human empathy and their disordered perception and cognition, which renders them unable to ameliorate their distorted worldviews with reality and reason, mark them out as a danger to others.”

We may not be a full-blown pathocracy yet, Hughes and Mika agree, but we’re headed in that direction.

“We are at the beginning of this process,” Mika said. “Like the virus-induced disease, it may need to take its course before it weakens and we can start to rebuild from the devastation it will cause. It’s hard to say what shape this devastation may ultimately take.”

Hughes referred to “The Dictatorship Syndrome,” by Alaa Al Aswany, which describes how a fully entrenched pathocracy operates like a machine, without any need for the dictator’s instructions.

“The U.S. is clearly not in that situation. It does however have many features of a society on its way towards pathocracy,” Hughes said, from the “clearly disordered president who enjoys widespread popular support” to the legion of lackeys eager for power and the erosion of democratic institutions they carry out for him, to the state-sponsored spread of “misinformation, hate mongering, and attacks on democratic opponents” and the resulting chaos of antisocial behavior.

The “partial collapse of democracy” in the United States, Hughes said, “can be used as one guide to the necessary response to Trumpism once Trump has been defeated,” Hughes said. “So too can comparisons with previous undemocratic regimes, such as those used by Feffer.”

But democratic recovery is extremely difficult, Hughes warns. He mentioned the example of Jared Diamond’s book “Upheaval: How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change,” which explores how countries have successfully navigated similar major upheavals in the past. “The lesson I drew from his book, however, and from history more broadly, is that nations seldom learn from their descent into pathocracy,” Hughes said So he argued that a more limited, targeted approach is better than one that tries to change everything at once.

Mika is skeptical as well, but from a different direction. “The way I see it, de-Trumpification as such is not possible yet, as we have not fully Trumpified yet,” she said.

What I mean by that is not only that Trumpian fascism has not fully taken over our society — which I hope against hope does not happen — but that we don’t fully understand what is happening and why. And understanding is key. Its lack has brought us Trumpism in the first place.

I see Trumpism as an inevitable and necessary confrontation with our shadow. This confrontation is meant to break apart our (deadly) illusions, most of all that about our non-ending progress, exceptional greatness, and immunity to pain and suffering that envelop such large swaths of the world.

We have cultivated these illusions at the expense of our growth and health, as our shadow side remained repressed and invisible, especially to those in power who have been most involved in the production of our toxic myths. Of course working Americans and minorities know the shadow all too well, as it is their daily bread.

This parallels an argument Hughes made in May, describing America as “a place where bad ideas never die.” As the depths of America’s failure to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic became clear, he contrasted the fate of the two Cold War superpowers:

The fall of the Soviet Union is remembered by many as the end of a bad idea — the idea that a one-party state can violently suppress its citizens in the name of the collective good. The “Fall of America” moment [caused by the pandemic] is of a different nature. It can be understood, not as the end of a bad idea, but rather as the pyrrhic victory of a whole set of bad ideas long present in U.S. culture which have grown to define the country in the last few decades.

The ideas Hughes cited were that “inequality is good,” that “religious freedom [so-called] trumps public good,” that “in the Civil War, the wrong side won,” the myth of “American exceptionalism,” i.e., “the idea that the U.S. is a unique, morally-superior civilization destined to guide the world” and “the myth of redemptive violence,” meaning “the belief that good can triumph over evil only by means of conflict.” These can all be seen as different forms of narcissistic fantasy and, more specifically, collective narcissistic fantasy. The more we cling to such fantasies, the more our shadow grows.

One of those bad ideas ties directly to one of Feffer’s three examples, that of “Reconstruction after the American Civil War,” and the failure of that process created the historical foundation on which Trumpism is built.

The lesson Feffer draws is a tough one: “Today’s Republicans, the equivalent of the northern Democrats of the post-Civil War era and a true confederacy of dunces, cannot be allowed to persist in their current incarnation as a vehicle for Trumpism.” To avoid that, “the next administration would have to drain the swamp Trump created, bring criminal charges against the former president and his key followers, and launch a serious campaign to change the hearts and minds of Americans who have been drawn to this president’s agenda.”

To accomplish that, he concludes, “it’s imperative to separate the legitimate grievances of Trump supporters from the illegitimate ones,” and both must be addressed in different ways.

This is the strongest aspect of Feffer’s argument — which is not to say it will be easy to pull off. Bringing charges against Trump may well be justified on multiple grounds, but doing so itself threatens democratic norms: The winners don’t throw the losers in jail, not in fully-functioning healthy democracies. But “no one is above the law” is also a central norm — a norm previously violated when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, and that came back to bite us in a big way with the rise of Trump. Clearly, this needs to be carefully thought through, and a professional, non-political investigation into Trump’s actual or potential crimes will be required.

Feffer also ties this point to the example of Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg trials, where “the Allied victors put nearly 200 Nazis on trial for various crimes: 161 were convicted and 37 sentenced to death.” To follow this example, Feffer suggests that federal prosecutors should prosecute Trump and his top associates as a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Doing so could “not only remove him from the political equation but could effectively delegitimize Trumpism and prevent a second round of it from occurring.”
Yet Feffer also notes that the Nuremberg Trials did not actually delegitimize Nazism. A 1947 survey in the U.S.-occupied sector of Germany found that 55% believed that “National Socialism was a good idea badly carried out,” which included Germans under 30 as well.

But there’s more to that story, Hughes argued. In contrast to the lesson from Diamond’s book that nations seldom learn, “Germany stands out as the truly remarkable exception to this rule,” even though “Nazi officials remained in positions of authority for decades after the war.”

The idea that Nazi crimes were the work of a handful of evil leaders was widespread for decades, Hughes wrote in his review, and only ended “thanks largely to one man, the German Jewish lawyer and Social Democrat Fritz Bauer,” who prosecuted low-level participants in Nazi atrocities, “low-level Germans who had been active at Auschwitz, low-level Nazi police, low-level German judges who had sentenced German resistance leaders and Jews, doctors who had participated in Nazi euthanasia, and rank-and-file German soldiers who had participated in atrocities.”

Without Bauer’s tireless efforts, Germany would probably never have faced up its past. As it was, that took decades to accomplish.

“The lesson for the U.S., therefore, is that few countries have attempted to, and none have succeeded in, the immediate de-pathologizing of society following a period of tyranny,” Hughes told me. “Misguided attempts to do so, as in the attempted de-Baathification of Iraq, were an unmitigated disaster. An aggressive attempt at de-Trumpification, or trying to ‘drive a stake through the heart of Trumpism,’ is therefore not a course, in my view, to be pursued in the aftermath of Trump’s defeat,” no matter how desirable that might seem.

That doesn’t mean doing nothing, but rather focusing intensely on more achievable goals. “Vigorous action is required,” Hughes told me. “We need to make the distinction between the minority actively driving an authoritarian agenda, and supporters who are drawn to aspects of their agenda but who will not violently resist democratic decisions,” Hughes said. “The vast majority of Trump supporters are not violent and will accept Trump’s defeat, even as they organize and campaign for the election of someone who will pursue similar policies and similar means in 2024.”

Of course, Trump is visibly trying to change the equation — and if he wins a second term, he might well succeed. But that’s not where we are today, fortunately. Like Hughes, Feffer views the de-Baathification of Iraq as a terrible failure, but draws hope from the fact that Baathism had been in place for generations, while Trumpism is just being established.

This suggests a twofold strategy, Hughes argued:

The response to Trumpism, and defense against it, should therefore focus on stringent measures to contain the power of the GOP and its ultra-wealthy backers (as the most powerful anti-democratic forces in the U.S.), alongside initiatives to reduce the polarization in U.S. society and reinvigorate all American citizens’ beliefs in democracy as the way to organize society.

Democrats already have some idea of how to pursue the first half of this strategy — though their commitment is still quite uneven. HR 1, the top 2019 House legislative priority, includes a suite of measures to reduce the influence of big money on both parties, including creation of a small-donor-focused public financing system for congressional candidates. (Small donations would be matched at a ratio of six to one, a powerful amplification of grassroots support.) A broader array of elite-power-limiting ideas pushed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other 2020 presidential candidates have gained varying degrees of support, but have not gelled into a unified, broadly-supported plan. Hughes’ analysis provides one more reason why Democrats ought to give this their highest priority.

But the second part of his strategy, to reduce polarization and strengthen faith in democracy, needs much more attention than it’s gotten so far. It’s particularly difficult because elite opinion and accepted definitions of “consensus” positions vs. “polarizing” positions don’t necessarily reflect actual public opinion — especially when the public is exposed to new information and freed from the constraints of elite partisan cues, as the recent dramatic swell of support for Black Lives Matter has illustrated.

A poll recently reported in Vanity Fair found that even substantial numbers of hardcore Trump supporters polled in June felt that protesters were “completely right” or “somewhat right” — rising to a stunning 59% majority among softer “Lean Trump” voters, and 72% of undecided voters with “mixed feelings” about the candidates. Even more stunning, the poll was conducted in two waves, and from June 1 to June 11, support jumped “a head-spinning 25 points among Lean Trump voters.”

This cuts deeply against the core dynamic that brought Trump to power in the first place, and points to a potential historical opening, and perhaps an attitudinal shift that could lead to lasting transformation, along the lines of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In early July, district attorneys in Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco, in partnership with the Grassroots Law Project, announced plans to create just such a process.

“When marginalized people have needed to finally rely on this system for justice, it has routinely failed them in the worst ways imaginable. This isn’t a bug in the system, but a feature,” the DAs said in a statement, describing what they intended to transform.

But the “goals of peace and reconciliation efforts are better defined, I think, where the culprit is relatively clear, i.e. ‘just’ racism,” Mika said. And this initiative is even more narrowly focused on the justice system. Whether it can facilitate broader change, even if it’s successful, is an open question”

Trumpism is an amalgam of grievances that, although fortified by racism, go far beyond it. It is not as much a problem to solve or a rift to heal as a fundamental clash of values. There is no reconciliation to be had, I am afraid, between the psychopathic lack of conscience and our recognition, respect for, and desire to live according to higher values. Choosing higher values, however, is the right path, as we acknowledge and grapple with our psychopathic shadow.

That’s a tall order indeed, but Hughes sees the beginnings of a solution. “Citizens’ assemblies, such as have been put in place in countries such as the UK, France and Ireland, are one possible means of re-establishing practices of democracy which can heal divisions and undermine the appeal of dangerous demagogic leaders,” he said. In his native Ireland, that process played a crucial role in repealing the constitutional prohibition on abortion, as well as advancing a set of climate-change recommendations, all passed by majorities of at least 80%, which helped inspire a wave of climate-change citizens’ assemblies across Europe and elsewhere over the past year.

“Pathocracies thrive on chaos and division,” Hughes explained. “In an environment of violence and hatred, those whose pathological characteristics match that culture will ascend to power. To destroy a pathocracy, tensions must be reduced, hatreds ameliorated, and reason and care must again become the foundations of society.”

In the aftermath of Trumpism, he said, “the focus must be on defending against those who seek to create and profit from such destructive environments and instead to create the institutions and norms that will allow the psychologically healthy majority of the population to create the rules.” That’s why he argues that “an aggressive campaign of de-Trumpification would be counterproductive. The best response is instead to strengthen the norms and institutions that [Trump] himself despises.”

This is only a broad overview of what will be needed. I haven’t even mentioned the courts. Feffer notes that the 200-odd federal judges appointed by Trump “will do their best to block all attempts to deconstruct Trumpism.” His suggested solution, “to make it illegal for judges to be members of the Federalist Society,” is comically inadequate to the depth of the problem. But what matters now is that we begin thinking in such big-picture terms.

Toward the end of his column, Feffer issued a warning:

To avoid a second Civil War, however, a second American Revolution would need to address the root causes of Trumpism, especially political corruption, deep-seated racism, and extreme economic inequality.

Otherwise, even if The Donald loses this election, the political creature he represents will rise from the ashes and eventually return to power.

This is the scale on which we need to be thinking — not exclusively or obsessively, and certainly not enough to distract from the immediate task of defeating Trump in November. But it’s necessary to look down the road, because we need to lay the groundwork for the even more difficult struggles ahead.