Essay
Is America angry enough for Trump?
The media has set a trap for the Republicans

BY JUSTIN WEBB

Justin Webb was the BBC's North America Editor

 and presents the Americast podcast and Today on Radio Four.


Elizabeth Warren will never be president. The senior senator from Massachusetts is in many ways hugely qualified for the job. She has a list of legislative achievements to her name, and on subjects like cryptocurrency reform she is still on the case and in the news. She ran a decent campaign for the Democratic party nomination in 2020. She is still young (compared to the President, anyway…) and if Joe Biden steps down she could in theory be the fall-back choice for 2024.

Except she couldn’t. Because of one man, one word.

For many years, political opponents had complained about the fact that Warren, while a professor at Harvard Law School, had been counted as a native American. It simmered, this row, but never really reached boiling point.

Until Donald Trump. The word: Pocahontas. He used it repeatedly to describe Warren in 2016, when she was stumping for Hillary Clinton. (Warren might have been Hillary’s vice-presidential pick!) A typical example from a rally that summer:

“Pocahontas is not happy, she’s not happy. She’s the worst. You know, Pocahontas — I’m doing such a disservice to Pocahontas, it’s so unfair to Pocahontas — but this Elizabeth Warren, I call her ‘goofy’, Elizabeth Warren, she’s one of the worst senators in the entire United States Senate.”

The earnest fact checkers at the New York Times would tell you that Senator Warren was eventually goaded into taking a DNA test, which suggested that somewhere in her past there was probably some Native American blood. But nothing that justified her signing an ethnic cookbook, “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee”. Not that the facts matter, terribly. Pocahontas hangs round her neck. It was the unspoken issue in 2020 and would be very much spoken were she to become the nominee in 2024.

I don’t mean to diminish her. She is a serious woman with a policy programme that could excite her party. But presidentially, she is toast. The genius of Donald Trump is the damage he can do with a word or a phrase. Pocahontas. Crooked Hillary. Low Energy Jeb. He finds something you might feel about a person, something you might even be ashamed of thinking, something you might not say publicly, and brings it to the fore. Makes it public, and unavoidable: visible from space. As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic put it: “The cruelty is the point.”

The Low Energy barb was aimed, of course, at a fellow Republican, dear old Jeb Bush, which brings us to the question at hand. Is Donald Trump — despite his obvious stumble in the midterms, the failure of some of his endorsed candidates, the anger of some party bigwigs towards him — still such a vicious political brawler that no one, man or beast, could withstand the impact of his vitriol? Once he gets going, on Fox News, in debates on all the US networks, perhaps back on Twitter, can he prevent any candidate from garnering the support of serious numbers of Republicans?

Let us assume that Trump supporters, the really hard core, make up 30% of the modern Republican party. Support for the other candidates at the Republican primary is going to be split among the remaining 70%. To succeed, one of them is going to have to become the anointed anti-Trump. Can Trump stop them?

As a recent headline in Politico put it: “Can Trump Do to DeSantis What He Did to Bush?” The smart money is on no. The early effort at bashing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has itself been low energy. Trump rambling about knowing stuff only his wife would know felt crucially out of kilter with the public perception of the DeSantis marriage, as did a trial run of the phrase “Ron DeSanctimonious” at a rally during the election campaign.

The thing is: Ron is not sanctimonious. At least not noticeably. His enemies say he’s un-charming and emotionally tin-eared but not sanctimonious. The phrase felt lame, untethered. It lacked the galvanising impact on the hypothalamus, the amygdala, the limbic cortex.

Ah, but wait. He’s only getting going. Perhaps these are what is known in the world of artillery as bracketing shots. They are establishing the target and warming the trigger finger. As Michael Kruse of Politico — the author of the Trump-DeSantis piece — heard from some serious players, the 2024 Republican primary is going to be HUGE and, whatever you might think now about the strength of the players, supremely unpredictable:

“DeSantis’s team is full of smart people,” anti-Trump Republican strategist and Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen told Kruse, “but they’ve never faced a face-eating dragon before.”

“Folks forget,” another close Trump adviser said, (we assume with a shudder,) “what DJT can do to somebody.”

To which the anti-Trump crowd respond with what they think is their trump card. Folks are over this stuff. Over Trump because they are over the whole appeal to the limbic cortex malarkey. They are keen on having their children catch up on the learning lost in the pandemic; finding a cure for inflation; working out a plan to end the war in Ukraine.

In fact, whisper it, they are not quite as angry as some of America’s liberal-dominated media might suggest and fear. The Intercept reported in late October a fascinating fact: the net worth of the poorer 50% of Americans has doubled since the first quarter of 2020 and is now far higher than it has ever been in American history. America is still hugely unequal, and poor people are still desperately poor, but assumptions about a class of hard-pressed folk at the ends of their tethers may be wide of the mark.

What I picked up following the State Senate candidate Greg Rothman round streets in suburban Pennsylvania for the Today Programme in the week before the election was a disinclination among Trump supporters to be as angry as their man. The personable Mr Rothman (who won his seat and has always supported the former president) was happy to acknowledge that Trump’s ill-discipline, his vitriol, was tiring and potentially off-putting.

But here’s the trap for Republicans tempted to agree. What if the anger drains away? What if the language of the party becomes more temperate again? What if they become… normal again? Having morphed into a firmly anti-establishment, tell it like it is, un-PC party, how do they keep the voters they have attracted to the polls when the message is more subtle. The many Americans who liked Trump because he stuck it to the elites and their ability to dominate the culture (Pocahontas, etc.) might be less energised by a DeSantis who had the same attitude (he does) but not the same bite.

“The biggest complaint you hear about DeSantis is that he never says thank you,” a veteran GOP strategist told Vanity Fair. DeSantis’s personality has been described as a mix of extreme arrogance and painful awkwardness. “He’s missing the sociability gene,” a prominent Republican said.

So is DeSantis likeable enough to be elected president? Trump was not likeable but had this other secret sauce: his extraordinary ability to connect with the dislikeable aspects of all our personalities. DeSantis might only prove dislikeable.

In those circumstances, where does the party turn?

Back to Trump. The face-eating dragon. Roaring again by 2024. Probably losing the general election but that may well be the party’s fate: they rode the dragon and are in the process of discovering: dismounting was never part of the deal.

'Toxic Twitter' activists ramp up pressure on brands after Trump account reinstated

Twitter began reinstating banned or suspended accounts late last week including the comedian Kathy Griffin as well as Trump. — AFP pic

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 22 ― A coalition of civil rights activists yesterday were urging Twitter's advertisers to issue statements about pulling their ads off the social media platform after its owner Elon Musk lifted the ban on tweets by former US President Donald Trump.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Trump's account, which Twitter had suspended after the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021 citing the risk of further incitement of violence, was reinstated over the weekend. Some 90 per cent of Twitter's revenue comes from selling digital ads.

The groups in the Stop Toxic Twitter coalition complained that Musk had vowed to advertisers that Twitter would take a considered approach to reinstating banned accounts and convene a new content moderation council. No such council has been created as of Monday.

“It was a real breach,” Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, a left-leaning media watchdog that is part of the coalition, said yesterday. He said Musk “was lying from the beginning.”

“In less than three weeks Musk has gone back on every promise he made to civil-rights leaders and advertisers,” said Jessica Gonzalez, co-chief executive of media and democracy group Free Press, which is also part of the Twitter coalition, in a press release.

Twitter, which lost much of its communications team when Musk slashed the staff shortly after taking over, did not immediately respond to request for comment.

This month, Musk complained that pressure from the activists had already caused a “massive drop in revenue.”

Twitter began reinstating banned or suspended accounts late last week including the comedian Kathy Griffin as well as Trump.

The platform also reinstated the personal Twitter account of US House Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene yesterday.

Of Twitter's top 100 advertisers by total spending this year, 51 have paused ads according to private conversations with the coalition, public statements or spending data provided by ad measurement firm Pathmatics, Carusone said.

The coalition is asking brands that have not publicised their Twitter pause to issue public statements and help generate pressure on the other 49 advertisers that have taken no action, he said.

“You need to take a stand and draw the line,” Carusone said. “It's important for big spenders to say they have stopped.”

The coalition will consider naming the companies later this week if they have not issued a public statement about pausing ads, he added.

Musk tweeted Saturday that Twitter would reinstate the former president's account after a slim majority voted yes on Musk's poll about the issue.

The names atop the list of Twitter's top advertisers have shifted from the week before Musk closed his deal to acquire the company. Major brands HBO and Mondelez were Twitter's top two advertisers in the week before the acquisition, according to data from Pathmatics. But between November 10 and November 16, after Musk laid off half of Twitter's staff, the top two largest advertisers were FinanceBuzz.io, a personal finance website and Trendytowns, an ecommerce site based in Singapore.

Pathmatics data showed that the top 100 advertisers between November 10 to November 16 spent an estimated US$23.6 million (RM108 billion) on Twitter, down from US$24. 2 million spent between October 16 to October 22 before Musk became Twitter's owner. ― Reuters

US tech layoffs: India workers face painful exit from the US

PublishedShare

"It felt like a break-up," says former Meta engineer Surbhi Gupta

Layoffs across the tech industry, including at firms like Twitter, Meta and Amazon, have affected a significant number of Indians working in the US who are on visas like the H-1B. California-based journalist Savita Patel speaks to workers who are facing the prospect of being forced to return to India if they don't find another job.

Surbhi Gupta, an Indian engineer working in the US since 2009, was surprised that she was laid off by Meta this month. "I was performing well at work," she says.

On 9 November, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, announced it would cut 13% of its workforce - the first mass lay-offs in the firm's history which resulted in 11,000 employees losing their jobs.

"None of us slept that night," Ms Gupta says. "At 6am, I got the email. I couldn't access my computer, nor the office gym. It felt like a break-up."

Ms Gupta is likely to be a familiar face for Indians. Winner of the 2018 Miss Bharat-California contest, she was featured most recently in the Netflix show Indian Matchmaking.

Now she is among thousands of educated and skilled immigrant workers fired by US tech companies this month.

Most of them work in the US because of the HI-B visa. It's a non-immigrant visa that allows firms to employ foreigners for up to six years in positions for which they have been unable to find American employees.

It also allows holders to apply for permanent residency in the US and buy property in the country.

Ms Gupta says she worked very hard to build a life in the US for "over 15 years".

Her visa now hinges on finding her next job.

Worldwide, more than 120,000 tech workers have lost jobs as a result of cutbacks by US tech companies, according to the Layoffs.fyi website, which tracks tech job cuts.

While companies have not released India-specific numbers, San Jose-based immigration attorney Sweta Khandelwal says "it's hurt the Indian community particularly hard."

"We saw an uptick in calls for consultation," she says. "Everybody is anxious, even those who have not been laid off fear that they might be [fired] later."

For Indian tech workers, the layoffs do not just mean seeking new employment but also finding employers who are willing help them continue with their work and pay for the associated legal costs.

"If a new employer is unable to transfer your visa petition in 60 days, the remedy is for people to leave [the US] and re-enter for work after the paperwork is complete," Ms Khandelwal says.

"But the practical aspect is that people will get stuck in India as there are not many visa stamping appointments available in consulates," she says.

Wait times for a visa appointment at US consulates in India have reached 800 days in some cases.

This is why the layoffs have come as an unwelcome surprise for Indian workers.

Sowmya Iyer, a lead product designer at the ride-sharing app Lyft, says she was part of a team that "had internally taken steps to maintain the fiscal health of the company".

But Ms Iyer found herself among hundreds who were laid off at the company this month. "We had not expected it to hit us," she says.

The mass layoffs feel like a "tech pandemic," she explains. "Both my friend and his wife lost their jobs on the same day. Everyone is in the same boat - reaching out, exchanging condolences."

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Meta's mass lay-off resulted in 11,000 employees losing their jobs

Ms Iyer says she has student loans to pay back and hasn't told her parents back home in the western Indian state of Gujarat about her layoff.

In the US on an O-1 visa - granted to individuals with "extraordinary ability and achievement" - Ms Iyer says she is confident of finding work.

Her resume lists degrees from prestigious design schools in India and the US and the O-1 visa allows her to stay on for 60 days after the termination of any job.

America's WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act offers a buffer before the 60-day visa clock starts. WARN requires employers to give a 60-day notice to the affected employees during a mass layoff.

"To ensure my status here and help me find an employer, my former employers have given me a month's notice, so currently I have three months," she says.

But for many Indians, even 90 days is a tight timeline and has upended plans they had. Many have families to support, others have thousands of dollars in loans to pay off.

Naman Kapoor had borrowed money to pay for his masters programme at New York University.

He was hired as an engineer by Meta after multiple rounds of interview only to be laid off seven weeks later. "I got the termination email at 8am [local time] on 9 November," he says.

"The whole idea is that a US education includes work experience," he says. "It is very expensive to study in New York. I worked to support my living expenses."

Mr Kapoor is in the US on an F-1 (OPT) visa which allows him only 90 days of unemployment during his stay in country.

"Meta offered me four months of pay as severance," Mr Kapoor explains. "But I have just three months within which I must find my next job or go back!"

IMAGE SOURCE,PHOTO COURTESY SURBHI GUPTA

Image caption,

Surbhi Gupta says worked very hard to build a life in the US "over 15 years".

Finding a new job in this environment will be tough, Ms Gupta says. "It's almost December - hiring will be slow because of the holidays."

In the wake of the layoffs, Ms Khandelwal says a community has formed to support people in crisis. Colleagues and employers have been spreading information and offering referrals for prospects online.

"I created Zeno, [a platform] to help the impacted (workers) find jobs," says Abhishek Gutgutia, a tech worker based in the Bay Area. "It has seen 15,000 visits so far."

Mr Gutgutia says his LinkedIn post on Zeno has nearly 600,000 views. "About 100 candidates, 25 companies and 30 mentors have signed up. Several immigration attorneys have also volunteered [their services]."

Vidya Srinivasan, a Meta employee, says she saw a "heart-warming outpouring of support from Meta-mates" in her efforts to put together a "Meta Alumni guide" for those whose lives changed overnight. Her online posts were seen by over a million people, she says.

Amid such hopes, Indian immigrant workers remain on tenterhooks until they land their next job.

"I am tired of being tested," Ms Gupta says. "How much stronger should I be?".

U$A

HIRING/RETENTION
It’s not just low pay causing retention issues for federal firefighters

Drew Friedman

Although low pay is the challenge most commonly discussed for federal wildland firefighters, it’s not the only factor leading to retention issues with the frontline workforce.

Other challenges, such as poor work-life balance and limited workforce diversity, pile onto the difficulties in retaining these federal employees.

The causes of retention challenges for the workforce are often tied together, too, according to Cardell Johnson, acting director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office.

“The pay piece is intertwined with the work-life balance piece,” Cardell said in an interview with Federal News Network. “You are working these long hours, you’re getting overtime pay, and you want that pay because you want to be able to afford basic necessities in life. But at the same time, you’re working a lot and you’re not getting that balance you need.”

Overall, there are seven common barriers to recruitment and retention for federal firefighters, a Nov. 17 GAO report said. The report compiled information from the departments of Agriculture and Interior — the two agencies that hire the vast majority of the 18,700 federal firefighters operating around the country — as well as several stakeholders.

Although low pay isn’t the only challenge for the workforce, it is one of the most notable ones, according to agencies and stakeholders in the report.

From Government Accountability Office report, “Wildland Fire: Barriers to Recruitment and Retention of Federal Wildland Firefighters.”

Most entry-level federal wildland firefighters now make $15 an hour, after agencies implemented a raise in August 2021, up from $13 an hour. But the slight pay bump is not enough to significantly improve employee retention, according to the report.


“The pay increase is intended to compensate firefighters for the hazardous work they perform, while improving the federal agencies’ competitiveness with nonfederal entities,” the report said. “However, even with the increase, officials and eight stakeholders said that the $15-per-hour minimum wage for entry-level positions does not reflect the risk or demands of the work.”

Interior, as well as Agriculture, which houses the U.S. Forest Service, created some incentives to try to offset the low pay. For example, agencies can offer $1,000 to all firefighters at or below level 9 on the General Schedule (GS-09), as well as relocation incentives, since many of the areas with the most dense wildfires also have high costs of living. Regardless, the pay issues still deter some firefighters from taking federal positions.

“I actually met some firefighters in California, who work not for the feds, but for the state, [because] they pay a little bit better than the feds do,” Johnson said. “They say that the reason [they work for the state] is the cost of living. They would love to become a federal firefighter, but can’t because of the cost of living in California.”

There’s also a temporary pay raise under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for federal firefighters — an extra $20,000 or an added 50% of base salary, whichever is lower — in locations where it is difficult to recruit or retain wildland firefighters. All locations were determined to have these challenges, meaning all federal firefighters will get the raise. But the temporary pay bump will only last for a couple of years.

The National Federation of Federal Employees, the union that represents federal firefighters, is one of several organizations calling for a permanent pay raise for the employees.

“It is critical that firefighters on the front lines of the wildfire crisis are compensated for the hazardous work they do in protecting our public lands and keeping our communities safe,” NFFE National Communications Director Matt Dorsey said in an email to Federal News Network. “In addition to a permanent pay fix, Congress must allocate resources so that agencies can address problems that are detrimental to firefighter recruitment and retention, such as limited career growth, poor work-life balance, mental health challenges and inadequate housing, among others.”

Career advancement was another significant barrier to recruitment and retention of federal firefighters, according to the report. With extensive field work during wildfire season, many employees find it difficult, if not impossible, to attend the necessary training to get a promotion, GAO said.

As part of another directive under the IIJA, though, agencies are working with the Office of Personnel Management to develop a new occupational series for federal firefighters. The creation of the new occupational series would aim to provide a definitive career path and lay out the requirements for career advancement.

“According to officials, the new series should help the agencies recruit and retain new applicants, as well as current firefighters, because they will be able to clearly identify the steps necessary to advance their careers,” the report said.

Currently, 70% of the Forest Service’s wildland firefighter workforce, and 59% of Interior’s wildland firefighter workforce, are at GS-07 or below.

“Classifying firefighting positions under the forestry or range technician occupational series—as most positions have been since 1972—does not recognize the physical demands of, or expertise involved in, firefighting,” the GAO report said. “This has contributed to low morale, as the individuals in these positions take pride in their work as firefighters and want to be recognized for that work.”


Want to stay up to date with the latest federal news and information from all your devices? Download the revamped Federal News Network app

The discussions among OPM, Interior and Agriculture are currently underway, to determine exactly how much the GS level and pay would increase under the new occupational series. But Johnson said it would likely eventually yield additional benefits for federal firefighters. The agencies have until next June — a year after the new occupational series was announced — to implement the occupational series.

Even though low pay was the most common concern among agencies and stakeholders, other challenges, such as work-life balance and mental health, are also high on the list of recruitment and retention barriers. Wildfire season has grown longer and more severe in recent years, which in turn has worsened many firefighters’ work-life balance. Even with added seasonal employees during peak wildfire season, many employees cannot, for example, attend routine doctor’s appointments in their very limited time off.

“Things that we probably take for granted, [like] taking a day or a few hours to go visit the doctor, that’s really difficult for a lot of firefighters because the fires don’t stop,” Johnson said. “The limited time that firefighters do get off, they’re trying to spend with their family.”

Additionally, the disproportionately white and male workforce causes issues specifically for retaining women and people of color in federal firefighter positions. In fiscal 2021, 84% of federal firefighters identified as men, and 72% identified as white.

Agencies are trying to increase diversity in the federal firefighter workforce, including through a wildland firefighter apprentice program. In fiscal 2022, women made up more than 20% of the 420 firefighters that the Forest Service recruited through the apprenticeship program, while underrepresented racial and ethnic groups comprised nearly 50%.

But there are additional issues, too. Some women federal firefighters have experienced sexual harassment, the report said.

“Being in a male-dominated environment, even if the sexual assault hadn’t occurred, that certainly raises flags, particularly for women, and they’re cautious about that, because there’s the potential risk for that, especially being in very isolated parts of the country,” Johnson said.

Agencies are starting to implement workforce trainings on the effects of sexual harassment, but it’s too soon to tell if that has impacted the number of occurrences.

Although agencies are trying to do more to improve retention rates overall, it will take more time to measure how much the changes actually help “move the needle,” Johnson said.

“The problem is very complex. There’s not just one challenge, there are multiple challenges here,” he said. “Once we start to see some of that data in the results from that evaluation, we’ll be able to say whether or not these things help. But based on what folks said, the options being explored by the agencies should really help move things forward.”

Beyond the scope of the GAO report, NFFE has advocated for additional measures to support federal firefighters. Those include more focus on medical issues and illnesses, such as studies on environmental exposure, limiting diseases that affect wildland firefighters, and taking better care of sick or injured firefighters after they leave the workforce.

In an effort to improve retirement for federal firefighters, the Senate also unanimously passed the First Responder Fair RETIRE Act last week, which will now move to the president’s desk for signing. The legislation equalizes retirement benefits for federal first responders — including federal wildland firefighters — who get injured on the job. The House unanimously passed companion legislation earlier this year.

NFFE applauded the passage of the bill, and urged legislators to move quickly to take further steps to support the frontline workforce.

“We hope that Congress will seriously consider the findings of the report and take action to implement the solutions NFFE and wildland firefighters have been suggesting,” Dorsey said. “Any further delay will only cause additional harm to an already untenable situation.”

Drew Friedman
Drew Friedman is a workforce, pay and benefits reporter for Federal News Network.
Follow @dfriedmanWFED

OPINION
PAUL KRUGMAN

How Democrats Can Fight This G.O.P.

Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

Normally, one would expect a political party that suffered severe electoral disappointment — falling far short of typical midterm gains despite high inflation and consumer discontent — to moderate its positions, to seek compromise in order to achieve at least some of its policy goals.

But the modern G.O.P., in case you haven’t noticed, isn’t a normal political party. It barely has policy goals, other than an almost reflexive desire to cut taxes on the rich and deny aid to those in need. It certainly doesn’t have policy ideas.

Republicans spent much of the election talking about inflation. But in a news conference just after securing a narrow majority in the House, top Republicans declared that their top priority would be … investigating the Biden family.

So the G.O.P. won’t help govern America. It will, in fact, almost surely do what it can to undermine governance. And Democrats, in turn, need to do whatever they can both to thwart political sabotage and to make the would-be saboteurs pay a price.

Before I get to ways Democrats might do that, let’s talk about two reasons Republicans are likely to be even more destructive and irresponsible than they might have been if the red wave they confidently expected had come to pass.

First, the very narrowness of the Republican majority in the House means that the next speaker, probably Kevin McCarthy, will need support from nearly every member of his caucus — which will mean empowering extremists and election deniers. As one former G.O.P. congressman put it, McCarthy may hold the title, but Marjorie Taylor Greene may well be speaker in practice.

You might object by pointing out that Nancy Pelosi had only a narrow majority these past two years and nonetheless managed to unite moderates and progressives behind her policy agenda. But McCarthy is no Pelosi — and progressive Democrats are infinitely more serious and interested in getting things done than MAGA Republicans.

Second, the economic environment, which was a headwind for Democrats this year, will probably (although obviously not certainly) begin to look better heading into 2024 — prompting frantic efforts by Republicans to make things worse.

Specifically, inflation seems set to fall substantially, especially because a dramatic leveling off in market rental rates hasn’t yet filtered through to official price measures. And while a recession is possible next year, it will probably be mild if it happens — and over well before the next elections.



So for the next two years we can expect Republican leaders, such as they are, to wreak as much havoc as they can, both to appease their party’s most extreme elements and to undermine what might otherwise look like successful governance by the Biden administration.

Unfortunately, Republicans will in fact have major opportunities to wreak havoc — unless Democrats use the next few weeks, during which they will retain control of Congress, to forestall them. Two issues in particular stand out: the debt limit and aid to Ukraine.

For historical reasons, U.S. law in effect requires that Congress vote on the budget twice. First, it authorizes spending and sets tax rates; then, if that legislation leads to budget deficits, it must separately vote to authorize borrowing to cover those deficits.

It’s not clear why this ever made sense. In the current environment, it allows politicians who don’t have the votes to change policy through normal procedure to hold the economy for ransom, as Republicans did during the Obama years, or simply blow it up out of sheer spite — because failing to raise the debt limit would probably cause a global financial crisis. Does anyone expect the incoming G.O.P. House to behave responsibly?

As for Ukraine, while the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and remarkably successful in turning back Russian invasion, they need a continuing inflow of Western aid, both military and economic, to continue the fight against their much larger neighbor. But it’s all too likely that a Republican Party that takes many of its cues from Tucker Carlson will try to block such aid.

The good news is that Democrats can, as The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent puts it, “crazyproof” policy during the lame duck session, raising the debt limit high enough that it won’t be a problem and locking in sufficient aid for Ukraine to get through the many months of war that surely lie ahead. And Democrats would be, well, crazy not to do these things as soon as possible.

Beyond that, Democrats can and should hammer Republicans for their extremism, for focusing on disruption and fake scandals rather than trying to improve Americans’ lives.

Savvy political pundits will no doubt mock such efforts. But these will be the same pundits who insisted that inflation would dominate the midterms and sneered at President Biden for talking about the threat Republican extremists posed to democracy — which turned out to be an important election issue after all.

It’s a given that Republicans will behave badly over the next two years. But Democrats can both limit the damage and try to make bad actors pay a political price.

.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

A rude awakening for the Republican Party -opinion

The Midterm election has dramatically weakened the Republican Party due to division within the party, which was largely precipitated by the result of the election.

By ALON BEN-MEIR
JERUSALEM POST

US PRESIDENT Joe Biden delivers remarks during a meeting with business and labor leaders at the White House, last week. The result of the midterm election considerably enhanced Biden’s credibility, says the writer
(photo credit: REUTERS)

The final results of the 2022 midterm election demonstrated several critical revelations. First, the majority of the American public still believes strongly that our democracy remains the bedrock of our political system and strongly repudiated political violence.

Second, whether running for reelection or for a new position, the vast majority of those candidates who questioned the results of the 2020 election or promised to overturn future election results, have generally been soundly defeated.

Third, this election has splintered the Republican Party, between those who still believe in the constitution and the principles of democracy, versus those who follow Trump and hold extremist positions, election deniers and white supremacists who are ready and willing to violate the constitution and our democratic form of government only to hold on to power.

Finally, the election has dramatically weakened the Republican Party due to division within the party, which was largely precipitated by the result of the election.

There are those who continue to support Donald Trump, the extremist MAGA Republicans who are out of touch with the American people and those constructive conservatives who view Trump as an albatross on the party and who are abandoning him. They want their party to solidify its footing and redeem itself, especially as we approach the 2024 election.



This month’s results have shown that a great majority of the country will no longer follow Trump, including Republican leaders such as former vice president Pence, who said it’s now time to move on.

Trump 2024

Although many Republican leaders have urged Trump not to run again because the future of the party is on the line, he nevertheless announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, which has now further increased the pressure on many Republican leaders to decide whether to follow him or abandon him.

The reaction to Trump’s announcement was very lukewarm, from both the public in general and from the media, especially the conservative outlets who blame him for the results of this election and see him as a loser and openly condemn him for what he has done. It made the schism within the party ever greater while emboldening those who oppose him, who fear that following him any further will doom the party perhaps for a generation.

THE CONSTRUCTIVE conservative Republicans who have chosen to stick with democracy must now develop their own agenda as to how to strengthen their anti-Trump wing of the party. They must first begin to systematically deny, defy and distance themselves from the MAGA Republicans, who continue to pose a threat to our democracy.

Those who are seeking authoritarian one-party state rule in practice, along the line of Hungary’s President Viktor Orban, want to politicize the judiciary, manipulate the electoral system, abolish social security and Medicare, make dissidents powerless, control the media and tolerate violence against any opponent.

The question is, will pro-democracy Republicans eventually acquire the upper hand, and what will it take? To do so, they need to develop a constructive conservative agenda, work with Democrats whenever and wherever possible to advance socioeconomic causes and make room for compromises in the service of the national interest.

Constructive conservative Republicans

First, the constructive conservative Republicans will need to campaign against the idea promoted by election deniers of sending new slates of electors to the electoral college should they not like the results of the election.

And to engender more public support they must fight to strengthen American democracy, strongly support the rule of law, and fully abide by the result of fair and free elections, which the American public badly wants and as they have demonstrated by the result of the midterm elections.

Second, they need to show that they are willing to work with Democrats, especially because that party is in control of the Senate and White House.

Obstructionism will not work for much longer and Republicans need to show that they are willing to work for the benefit of the American people. Democrats and Republicans have collaborated on scores of legislation over the years and they can continue to cooperate in areas of critical importance to the national interest.

Third, the American people have shown in numerous referenda that there is majority support for some form of abortion access.

The constructive conservative Republicans must cease trying to implement any further legislation to ban abortion on the state level and drop the idea of a nationwide abortion ban.

Not only is this wholly unpopular across the country, but given that in the lead-up to the Dobbs decision GOP leaders promoted the idea that abortion is a states’ right issue, to turn around and call for a nationwide ban on abortion is the height of hypocrisy.

Fourth, they must not support the call to end Medicare and Social Security, calls that have been echoed for decades yet remain extremely unpopular. They must also discourage others in their party from continuously promoting unpopular ideas which will only cause further harm to the party.

Fifth, instead of merely criticizing Trump for his false statements, which are sure to explode in number and scope during his campaign, they must fact-check him and point out the truth. Refuting his lies publicly and often will restore the public’s trust and also give them an opportunity to promote their own constructive conservative agenda.

SIXTH, IT must henceforth be a given that they make it absolutely clear that they are not election deniers, repudiate those who are, and pledge that they will respect the results of future elections and will never again engage in the falsity that the 2020 election was stolen.

The proof showing that the 2020 election was legitimate is overwhelming, and the vast majority of the American people want the chaos and circus to end. It will only further emasculate the GOP if they continue engaging in this falsehood.

Finally, constructive conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate must pledge to not support any bogus investigations against Biden, Attorney-General Garland, or any other frivolous investigations, as they are solely political in nature and do nothing but distract the country from the urgent issues facing the nation.

The result of the election gave the Democrats some room to breathe and considerably enhanced Biden’s credibility. The administration must now focus on charting a new path for growth and opportunity for all who seek it while continuing to deliver on promises they have made and build on what they have achieved.

This included rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, reversing Trump’s cruel family separation policy at the southern border, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act while closing the boyfriend loophole.

And in addition to the $2.2 trillion (NIS 7.63 t.) CARES stimulus bill in the wake of the pandemic, the Biden administration passed a $1 t. (NIS 3.47 t.) infrastructure bill created a plan to forgive up to $20,000 (NIS 69,350) in student loan debt per borrower and passed the most significant gun control law in 30 years, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act.

Most importantly, the Democrats need to continue to aggressively pursue climate change and address its effects are far-reaching and causing an increasing displacement of millions of people, which is fueling a massive influx of immigration.

In that regard, the Democrats also need to continue to address immigration and search for a solution to bring immigration under control while remaining consistent with our culture and history of being a country of immigrants, which made America great and powerful.

Under Trump, the US saw, for the first time in its history, a president who challenged and violated the constitution and refused to accept the results of a legitimate election.

He was willing and very nearly succeeded in burning our democracy to the ground by plotting and executing a violent insurrection to annul the legitimate result of a free and fair election, which is tantamount to treason. And for this, he must have his day in court. This must be a very serious wake-up call for all Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans alike should be united and unequivocal to ensure that America will never again face the likes of Trump. They must commit to preserving, protecting and defending our democracy, which is the most precious value that has defined America since its inception.

The writer is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He has taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

RIGHT TO WORK UNION FREE

LG Chem to build $3.2B battery cathode plant in Tennessee

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee officials on Monday announced plans to invest $3.2 billion to develop a cathode materials plant for electric vehicle batteries.

The manufacturing facility will be built in Clarksville and create more than 850 jobs, according to a memorandum of understanding signed by the state of Tennessee and South Korea-based LG Chem.

“LG Chem’s decision to invest $3.2 billion in Clarksville is a testament to Tennessee’s unmatched business climate, skilled workforce and position as a leader in the automotive industry,” Gov. Bill Lee said in a statement.

Officials say the facility will help support the electric vehicle battery value-chain across the United States. Construction will begin next year, with the goal to start mass production in 2025. Once operational, the goal is to produce 120,000 tons of cathode battery materials annually — or enough to power 1.2 million electric vehicle batteries.

“The new cathode manufacturing facility in Tennessee brings us one step closer to becoming the world’s best battery materials manufacturer and fulfilling our corporate vision to become a top global science company,” said LG Chem CEO Shin Hak-Cheol in a statement. “This site will be the North American manufacturing center of excellence for the cathode supply chain and lead to the creation of many well-paying jobs, contributing to the local economy in Clarksville.”

Across Tennessee, companies have invested $12.7 billion in the state through EV-related projects since 2017.

Conservation Communication: Time To Rethink the Word ‘Poacher’?


Killing an endangered species is a heinous crime, but the language around the act requires a refocus away from colonialization.

The Revelator 


By John R. Platt

A man sneaks into a protected forest, where he hunts and illegally kills an animal. He’s later caught and charged with a crime: poaching.

That’s a word those of us in the conservation community need to rethink.

I’m a conservation journalist focusing on endangered species, and I’ve written about wildlife trafficking and used the term “poach” (or “poacher” or “poaching”) hundreds of times, often in headlines. But for a while now, I’ve also found the word … troubling.

You see, it dates back a millennium or so, to the era of William the Conqueror. Back then, many forest animals legally belonged to the king, and the Middle English term pocchen described the punishable-by-death crime of taking/hunting wildlife from the forest and hiding it in a “pouch” or bag.

Centuries later, the term “poacher” has a distinctly colonialist (and therefore racist) feel. It places all illegal hunters and trappers — some of whom are immoral profiteers, others of whom are just trying to feed their families — together at the bottom of the social strata.

It also paints them with a collective brush: The word “poacher” describes them all as criminal — or even evil.

That implication has consequences. It stirs up anger and hate. Anger can be a useful emotion for creating positive change, but hate leads to dehumanization and can result in further violence.

Case in point: Several years ago I wrote an article that asked, “Is it ethical to kill poachers?” It stemmed from the ever-increasing militarization of conservation and looked at the societal cost of asking wildlife rangers to use lethal force. The article didn’t have any easy answers to the headline’s question, but online commenters sure did. Upset at seeing images such as dehorned rhinos and blood-soaked elephants, they screamed a resounding, bloodthirsty “yes!”

In a lot of ways, that response proved the point of my article: Calling people “poachers” puts a target on their collective backs.

And they don’t necessarily deserve that. In truth, while illegal hunting and trapping remain crimes, and the slaughter of an endangered species is especially heinous, the reasons behind these acts vary widely, as should our responses to them. Some “poachers” — the victims of oppression, racism, forced displacement, income inequality, climate change, colonialization and cultural disruption — deserve our compassion and assistance, not our condemnation.

So what do we do about this? Replacing the word “poachers” with “illegal hunters” or “illegal trappers” is one solution to righting the language, although even that has colonial overtones and ignores factors such as traditional practices and income inequality.

Another angle extends the language of human law. In her 2019 book The Crimes of Wildlife Trafficking, criminologist Ragnhild Aslaug Sollund looks at things through the perspective of victimology and uses the terms “abduction” for taking animals from the wild and “theriocide” (the equivalent of homicide) for taking their lives.

One other solution involves looking at the reasons for the behavior before naming it. In his 2020 paper “Poaching Is Not One Big Thing,” ecologist Robert A. Montgomery said we should ask if the plants or animals were illegally collected or killed to address the need for food (consumption), health (medicative) or financial gain (trophy poaching). If we do that, then we can also approach the behavior appropriately, both in our language and our mitigative measures.

No matter what choice we make here, the lesson is that language matters and the choices we make can affect public perception and even conservation outcomes. If we tell people they’re criminals for feeding their families or engaging in ages-old cultural practices, they’re likely to respond negatively to anything else the conservation community or government says or does about it.

There’s no easy answer or single word to replace “poach,” “poacher” or “poaching.” To me, though, there’s a need to be specific when describing these actions and make distinctions between things like subsistence hunting — which could be a social justice issue — and the for-profit illegal wildlife trade, which remains worthy of full condemnation … as well as a few choice words.

—

This story was originally published by The Revelator. Reprinted under a Creative Commons License