With Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, we now have the 2024 Democratic Party ticket—and we clearly recognize that more than that ticket is on the November ballot. But where is the vision to inspire and propel our energies and actions? It’s in our history and our deepest yearnings—and now is the time to make it manifest.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to the corporate media or, for that matter, to Democratic politicians’ campaign speeches and ads, but this year marks the 80th anniversary of President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union message calling for an Economic Bill of Rights for All Americans. This was a speech that inspired the labor movement and progressive organizations to launch major campaigns to try to secure it.

True, they did not realize that vision. The opposition of the corporations, the wealthy, and the right was too strong. But the vision and aspirations did not die. And even now, after 50 years of class war from above and concerted efforts to suppress the working class, polling reveals that the great majority of Americans still aspire to renew the revolutionary promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and secure the makings of a second bill of rights. So, it’s up to us—progressives and labor unionists today—to reinvigorate and renew the struggle.

In that spirit, Alan Minsky of Progressive Democrats of America and I, with input from Nina Turner, authored a series of pieces for Common Dreams (here, here, and here) to both remind Americans of their own history and to lay out an updated version of FDR’s vision, that is, a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights—a bill of rights that has garnered very promising support. Not only have prominent progressive political figures taken it up, but also the nation’s most dynamic labor voice, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA president Sara Nelson. Moreover, leading the way in trying to get the Democratic Party to embrace it, the Massachusetts and West Virginia state parties have adopted it as part of their platforms.

To enhance the developing campaign—and give the story even greater color—comic-book creator Matt Strackbein (aka The Letterhack) suggested to me that we produce a comic not only to recount the 80-year struggle for an Economic Bill of Rights, but also to project how we today might actually realize it.

So here it is. We hope you find these words and images compelling. Enjoy and please share widely!

Prologue
Part I — Why an Economic Bill of Rights?
Part II: The Four Freedoms... in 2024
Part III: FDR's Vision and the Reactionary Opposition
Part IV: Civil Rights Are Economic Rights 
Part V: Class War From Above
Part VI: The Rich Got Richer as Workers Got Kicked
Part VII: A (Stifled) Working-Class Resurgence
Part VIII: The Moment Is Now
Part IX: An Economy for Working People and the Common Good
Part X: A Struggle From the Bottom Up!

Since the launch of cable television, bundling has defined the consumer’s experience. Expensive program packages have always offered a mix of broadly desired and niche programming. The opportunity to buy a slender package of channels tailored to our individual interests has always been out of reach. It was impossible to get what you wanted, without getting what you did not. These bundling requirements have long been dictated by the programming giants like Disney, Warner Bros., and Fox, who control several of the key channels that distributors like cable companies need to offer in order to remain viable.

From the late 2000s to the early 2010s, several on-demand internet streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max, many of which are owned by those same programming giants, came about to offer cheaper access to narrower sets of content, though they rarely offered meaningful options for viewing the live programmatic content available on cable. Then, as more and more consumers sought to have their media delivered over the internet, the advent of live programmatic internet streaming services like Fubo and Sling TV helped recreate the experience of traditional cable. While those services initially innovated, offering slender and specialized live viewing experiences, in recent years they have suffered the same bundling issues that defined the cable industry.

The key to understanding the evolution of television markets is sports. Sports is by far the most popular form of live broadcast entertainment. And because well over 90% of televised sporting events are consumed live in real time, and because consumers have demonstrated a much higher willingness to pay premium rates for live sports content over live television programming, sports are broadly understood as the linchpin of linear television markets. And while no love has been lost between traditional cable providers and live programmatic streaming services, their shared ability to leverage sports contents’ unique appeal has allowed both industries to remain viable for now. (Though cable providers continue to lose market share to live programmatic streaming services with each passing year.) This is despite the longstanding costly licensing deals and onerous channel bundling requirements imposed on them by the large programming giants, namely Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox.

Local television stations, which largely rely on carriage fees from redistribution through cable providers, stand to face massive hits to their bottom lines—a loss that could have profound consequences for the broadcast journalism that often serves as the only source of news in information deserts around the country.

This status quo, however, is unstable, largely due to the ongoing pressure on programmers to unbundle popular sports. In that light, the announcement of a new partnership between Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox on a sports-centric live programmatic streaming service, Venu Sports, may sound like a revelation to the average consumer. But as demonstrated by a case seeking to block the new partnership brought by Fubo—another live programmatic streaming service—the launch of this service may determine whether the live television market of the future includes a robust number of distributors, or is controlled entirely by programming giants Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox.

While sports fans may be eager to finally be able to access the narrow product they have long desired, a monopoly over live sports offerings threatens to harm consumers broadly by driving out any potential distribution competitors to the programming giants. These giants, which also control large swaths of other pieces of the media industry (including Disney’s direct ownership of live programmatic service Hulu + Live TV), control the distribution rights of over 80% of national live sports broadcasts, and over 50% of the cumulative national and regional sporting events rights. With that market power, these giants could destroy what remains of the cable television market and stifle competition in the market for live programmatic streaming services before it fully gets off the ground.

Fubo argues as much in their complaint. Fubo, which launched in 2015 as FuboTV, has a particularly strong case to make against why the coercive practices imposed by the programming giants should be cause for grave alarm among antitrust authorities. In their case, they recount their decade-long effort to negotiate such a sports-centric streaming service with the programming giants. While initially successful, the company claims that it quickly faced resistance once its model gained steam.

In a section of the complaint titled “The Empire Strikes Back” (a jab at lead defendant Disney’s vast media empire, which includes the Star Wars franchise) the company claims its rapid early growth was quickly squashed by the programming monopolists, which Fubo claims used more burdensome bundling requirements as well as a series of kickbacks and most-favored-nation clauses with non sports-centric live programming streamers (including Disney’s Hulu + Live TV) to make Fubo’s preferred packages economically inviable. With these onerous requirements still in place and the launch of Venu Sports imminent, the company claims it may soon be forced out of business altogether. That existential concern led Fubo to seek a preliminary injunction stopping the launch of the partnership, which is being heard from August 6 through August 9, with a decision expected within a few weeks’ time.

While Fubo’s story is uniquely galling, it is far from alone in its worries about the ripple effect the launch of the joint venture could have on sports leagues and the entire live television ecosystem. Local television stations, which largely rely on carriage fees from redistribution through cable providers, stand to face massive hits to their bottom lines—a loss that could have profound consequences for the broadcast journalism that often serves as the only source of news in information deserts around the country.

The very sports leagues whose content stands to be distributed by the new joint venture have also expressed alarm at the prospect the three giants may begin bidding for licenses as a unit, which would drastically reduce the number of license buyers in the market and potentially kneecap licensing revenue growth. And satellite television providers Dish Network and DirecTV, which have long sought greater flexibility over their channel offerings, have filed affidavits in the case supporting Fubo’s claims. ACA Connects—a trade group representing hundreds of small and mid-sized broadband, video, and phone providers who often but heads with the satellite giants—also released a scathing statement about the deal.

The Department of Justice and federal lawmakers have heeded those cries, and have promised to scrutinize the terms of any final deals once they are released—though they have expressed frustration over the programming giants’ ongoing refusal to answer basic conflict of interest questions mere months before Venu Sports is expected to launch.

Despite this broad coalition of opponents and skeptics, Fubo’s case for a preliminary injunction remains marred by uncertainty. Even though they present many of the same practical anti-competitive challenges, federal courts have historically been reluctant to police joint ventures with the same force as full-blown mergers. Should the programming giants successfully squash a preliminary injunction, it is uncertain whether federal enforcers and the potential jurors Fubo has asked to decide the case can muster the will to put the cat in the bag, especially if Venu Sports’ competitors suffer the swift devastation they claim is likely. What is certain, though, is that as the hearing over the new service’s launch unfolds this week, the entire live entertainment industry is tuning in.

If this “weird” thing helps the Democrats (and the rest of us) to beat Trump (and to keep the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society and their billionaire patrons at bay), I will, reluctantly, endure it. Whatever it takes.

A recent Salon headline reads: "’Pointing and laughing:’ Democrats leaned in on ‘weird’ and experts say it's working.”

OK. But I don’t like it. In fact, it troubles me quite a lot.

Most of the people I love best are “weird.” I aspire to be weird, and I worry that I should have the nerve to be weirder, and I dream of living in a country where “weird” is OK. I’ve spent most of my life criticizing and lamenting the ways in which our society shames people into “normalcy.”

Jimi Hendrix was weird. Bob Dylan is weird. Frida Kahlo was weird. Bernie Sanders is weird. Abe Lincoln was weird. My favorite students are weird. My best friends are weird. And there are millions of weird people doing incredible, liberating, mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting, care-taking, creative work that will make our lives better and richer because they are weird enough to see beyond “the way things are supposed to be.”

This is not to say that Trump, JD Vance, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Stephen Miller are not weird. They are. But way more importantly, they are hateful, racist, narcissistic and anti-democratic.

And of course, in a country with a long history of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, Christo-fascist notions of “normalcy,” everyone who isn’t a straight white christian boy is in serious danger of being ostracized as “weird.”

A society in which we fight over who is “normal” while we “point and laugh“ at the weirdos is a dangerous society.

This is not to say that Trump, JD Vance, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Stephen Miller are not weird. They are. But way more importantly, they are hateful, racist, narcissistic and anti-democratic.

I oppose racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, mass incarceration, tax cuts for the rich, violent borders, climate change, hate, lying, the glorification of wealth, meanness, narcissism, war, the glorification of war, shitty food, the deregulation of rapacious opportunistic corporations, the fascist supreme court, voter suppression, and efforts to hide and deny our violent racist history. As far as I can tell, the GOP is enthusiastically in favor of all of this.

But I am not opposed to weirdness. In fact, it’s a cherished value.

So, I hope we can find a different and better narrative. In the meanwhile, let’s be very careful.

In their relief and excitement about getting rid of Joe Biden as their nominee, Democrats are forgetting all about Kamala Harris’ demonstrated weaknesses as a candidate in the most recent election cycle.

The post That Never Happened first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On this episode of The Final Countdown, hosts Ted Rall and Steve Gill discuss various current events around the world, including Kamala Harris announcing her VP pick.    The show begins with human rights lawyer and author Dan Kovalik sharing his perspective on Kamala Harris’s new running mate Tim Walz.   Then, CEO of Larrea Wealth Management and financial expert Aquiles Larrea joins the show to discuss the state of the U.S. stock market as the futures bounce back.   The second hour starts with the Managing Editor of Covert Action Magazine Jeremy Kuzmarov discussing the latest out of the escalating situation in the Middle East, including Iran’s awaited retaliation against Israel.  The show closes with International relations and security analyst Mark Sleboda to discuss F-16s entering Ukraine’s battleground and Russia’s advances in the Donbas region.      The post The Final Countdown – 8/6/24 – Kamala Harris Picks Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate  first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

“I am proud to announce that I’ve asked Tim Walz to be my running mate,” U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris said this morning. “One of the things that stood out to me about Tim is how his convictions on fighting for middle-class families run deep. It’s personal.”

She went on to say:

He grew up in a small town in Nebraska, spending summers working on his family’s farm. His father died of cancer when he was 19, and his family relied on Social Security survivor benefit checks to make ends meet. At 17, he enlisted in the National Guard, serving for 24 years. He used his GI Bill benefits to go to college, and become a teacher. He served as both the football coach and the advisor of the Gay-Straight Alliance.

I share this background both because it’s impressive in its own right, and because you see in no uncertain terms how it informs his record. He worked with Republicans to pass infrastructure investments. He cut taxes for working families. He passed a law to provide paid family and medical leave to Minnesotan families.

He made Minnesota the first state in the country to pass a law providing constitutional abortion protections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and as an avid hunter, he passed a bill requiring universal background checks for gun purchases.

But what impressed me most about Tim is his deep commitment to his family: Gwen, Gus, and Hope. Doug and I look forward to working with him and Gwen to build an administration that reflects our shared values.

Whether you are a supporter, a volunteer, a donor, a member of our staff, or your name is on the ticket: You are part of the people-powered campaign that is going to defeat Donald Trump.

We are going to build a great partnership. We are going to build a great team. We are going to win this election.

If this doesn’t convince you of the wisdom of Harris’ choice, the Trump campaign’s immediate attack on Walz as a “dangerously liberal extremist” should.

What are the Trumpers so upset about? Just this: Walz has signed bills protecting abortion access, expanding background checks for gun purchases, and legalizing recreational marijuana. He is one of the nation’s most forceful advocates for tackling climate change—signing a law requiring Minnesota to generate all of its electricity from wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources by 2040, and eliminating the climate-warming pollution generated by coal and gas-fired power plants. He also has one of the nation’s best records on childcare—signing into law paid leave, lowering childcare costs, and making childcare options more available.

One other thing about Walz—perhaps the most important at this juncture—is that he will help Kamala win the presidency.

His Midwest folksiness, his cheerful capacity to skewer Trump and Vance (“weird”), and his disarmingly upbeat can-do attitude will be terrific foils for the negative, hate-filled Trump and Vance.

Walz is a progressive populist minus the anger. In a Democratic Party dominated by lawyers, financiers, and urban coastal regions, Walz is from a small Midwestern town and was a football coach and high school social studies teacher before entering politics. He’s as close to Jimmy Stewart as the Democrats have come in many years. He’ll eat Vance for lunch without Vance even knowing.

It’s a terrific choice.

In a bold political move, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate for the 2024 election. This decision marks a significant shift in the Democratic party's strategy, potentially redefining the narrative around progressive policies and their place in mainstream American politics.

Walz, who has rapidly risen to national prominence in recent months, offers a fresh perspective on progressive ideals. His approach represents a type of "pragmatic progressivism” that seeks to position traditionally left-leaning policies as common-sense solutions that align with the values and needs of the majority of Americans. This strategy could prove crucial in bridging the political divides that have increasingly characterized U.S. politics in recent years.

The Minnesota governor first caught the nation's attention with his memorable labeling of former President and current Republican nominee Donald Trump and his VP choice JD Vance as "weird." This quip, while seemingly offhand, opened the door for Walz to articulate his vision of progressive policies as the new "normal" in American politics.

Walz's pragmatic progressivism offers a new direction for the Democratic Party. By positioning progressive policies as common-sense solutions rather than radical changes, he helps to reframe the party's image.

Since then, Walz has leveraged his newfound national exposure to argue passionately for a range of progressive initiatives. His focus on LGBTQ rights, increased welfare for childcare, education, housing, and renewable energy resonates with the Democratic base while also appealing to moderates and independents. Walz's framing of these policies as practical solutions to everyday problems rather than ideological positions has gained traction across the political spectrum.

Walz's background as a teacher and high school football coach informs his political approach in significant ways. He frequently draws on these experiences to connect with voters and explain complex policy issues in relatable terms. His emphasis on education extends beyond the classroom, as he seeks to better inform the public about the benefits of progressive policies to win their support.

This educational approach stands in contrast to the political evolution of his running mate, Kamala Harris. While Harris has moved from her roots as a tough-on-crime prosecutor in California to more left-wing positions during her 2020 presidential run, and now toward the center as the 2024 presumptive nominee, Walz has taken a different tack. He has used his time in Minnesota politics, particularly as governor, to consistently frame progressive positions as "normal," necessary, and aligned with most Americans' values.

Walz's pragmatic progressivism offers a new direction for the Democratic Party. By positioning progressive policies as common-sense solutions rather than radical changes, he helps to reframe the party's image. This approach could be key in countering Republican narratives that paint Democrats as out of touch with mainstream America. One of Walz's most striking characteristics is his vocal insistence that winning elections is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve real, positive change for people. This focus on tangible results over political maneuvering resonates with voters tired of perceived political games and empty promises.

The Harris-Walz ticket presents an opportunity to reposition the Democratic Party not just as defenders of democracy, but as true representatives of the people rather than elites. This shift could be crucial in appealing to voters who have felt increasingly alienated from the political process. Moreover, Walz's approach could open the door for even more ambitious progressive policies. By framing current progressive ideas as "normal," he creates space for discussions around more radical but similarly sensible policies. These could include initiatives like creating free community energy, refunding community services to make them safer, and commons-based housing solutions.

The potential of these policies to demonstrate the practicality and benefits of socialist principles in everyday life is significant. If successful, they could reshape the political landscape, positioning capitalist norms of massive inequalities, everyday exploitation, and systemic discrimination as the truly "weird" outliers. The Harris-Walz ticket represents a potentially game-changing moment in American politics. As the campaign unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how Walz's pragmatic progressivism interacts with Harris' more traditional political evolution. The synthesis of these two approaches could create a powerful new political narrative, one that could reshape the Democratic Party and American politics as a whole.

The implications of this new approach extend far beyond the 2024 election. If successful, it could fundamentally alter the way Americans think about progressive policies, potentially paving the way for more substantial systemic changes in the future. By framing traditionally left-leaning policies as common-sense solutions, this opens the door for local governments to experiment with more ambitious socialist initiatives without fear of immediate backlash. This could lead to a surge of innovative programs at the municipal and state levels, such as community-owned energy projects, worker-owned cooperatives, and universal basic income pilots, all positioned as practical responses to local needs rather than ideological statements.

The Harris-Walz ticket's success or failure will likely hinge on their ability to convince voters that their vision of "normal" aligns with the realities and aspirations of everyday Americans. If they can effectively make this case, they may not only win the election but also set the stage for a progressive new era of American politics.

Since the disputed July 28 presidential election in Venezuela, U.S. officials have been calling for transparency from the Venezuelan government while keeping quiet about their efforts at regime change.

Claiming that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has stolen the election, U.S. officials have been working to bring to power the Venezuelan opposition. With nothing to say about their decadeslong relationship with opposition leader María Corina Machado, who has previously benefited from U.S. funding, U.S. officials have been portraying the opposition as a popular movement that won the election, all without external support or interference.

“The Venezuelan people deserve an election that genuinely reflects their will, free from any manipulation,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on the day of the election.

If U.S. officials are serious about wanting to see an election free from any manipulation, then they must be transparent about the U.S. role in the country. While it remains important for the Venezuelan government to release detailed voting results, just as several leftist leaders in Latin America have requested, it also remains critical for the United States to release detailed records about its relationship with the opposition, something it has spent years trying to keep hidden.

U.S. Manipulation

For decades, the United States has been the primary source of manipulation in Venezuela. With the goal of achieving regime change, the United States has been supporting an opposition movement that has been trying to mobilize the Venezuelan people against the Venezuelan government.

During the early 2000s, U.S. officials worked closely with Machado, the current opposition leader, who has long faced allegations of trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. With funding from the U.S. government and support from U.S. diplomats, she and her organization Súmate led an effort in 2004 to oust then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in a recall referendum. When it failed, Machado repeatedly cast doubt on the results, even though data collected by her organization indicated that Chávez had won, just as election monitors found.

At the time, former President Jimmy Carter charged members of Súmate with deliberately distributing misleading data for the purpose of manipulating the election. “There’s no doubt some of their leaders deliberately distributed this erroneous exit poll data,” Carter said, as reported by The New York Times.

Since then, U.S. leaders have overseen many additional efforts at regime change, targeting both Chávez and Maduro, all of which have failed. In 2019, the Trump administration made one of the most audacious moves, rallying behind opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who led a failed uprising and later fled the country.

At the same time that they are demanding that the Venezuelan government be transparent about the results, [U.S. officials] are keeping quiet about their own efforts to empower the opposition and achieve regime change.

“Our conundrum, which is to keep the opposition united, has proven devilishly difficult,” then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lamented, as reported by The Washington Post.

In the July 28 election, the Venezuelan people voted in the context of widespread social and economic collapse, which has been facilitated by the United States. During the Trump administration, U.S. officials imposed severe sanctions on Venezuela, trying to make life so miserable for the Venezuelan people that they would turn against the Venezuelan government.

As former officials in the Trump administration recently acknowledged, they expected their approach to cause the Venezuelan economy to collapse and many people to flee the country. Not only did their actions push Venezuela into the one of worst economic collapses in modern history, but they made life so difficult that more than 7 million Venezuelans fled the country in one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.

Many Venezuelan migrants have sought entry to the United States, driving the large increase in border crossings, all of which had been anticipated.

The Venezuelan people who have remained in their homeland are still suffering from the effects of U.S. sanctions. Even with the recent election, they have faced few good options, having been forced to deal with a hostile United States.

One of their options has been to support Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the current target of the United States. A vote for Maduro could lead the United States to preserve its sanctions, all but guaranteeing more years of suffering.

Another one of their options has been to side with the U.S.-backed opposition. A vote for the opposition could lead to relief from U.S. sanctions, but it risks bringing to power a right-wing regime that will prioritize U.S. interests and perhaps even transfer the country’s oil wealth to U.S. corporations. Machado, for example, has insisted that she will privatize PDVSA, the state oil company.

Although the Venezuelan government barred Machado from running for office, she remains the main opposition leader, being the driving force behind little-known opposition candidate Edmundo González, who has been serving as her proxy.

U.S. officials have said that public opinion polls display widespread support for González, but critics have questioned their reliability. Analysts at the Center for Economic Policy and Research have reported that support for González has been overestimated, largely due to polling bias.

U.S. Secrecy

Through it all, U.S. officials have been highly secretive about their actions, even while calling for transparency. They have not disclosed which opposition groups they are funding, a longstanding practice.

Neither have they been open about their links to Machado, perhaps due to a critical change in their approach that they began to consider after the 2004 referendum. Once the Venezuelan government began publicizing Machado’s connections to the United States, even charging her and her colleagues with treason, U.S. officials began to consider how they could empower her without appearing as if they were her puppet-master.

During a private meeting on January 10, 2005, then-U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) floated one possibility, advising Machado and her colleagues “to seek international financing from non-U.S. sources” so that the Venezuelan government “cannot credibly label Súmate as a USG-backed organization.”

Machado rejected the advice, however, insisting that Súmate should be able to openly receive funding from the United States, including from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). “Foreign financing for NGOs is legal, despite the GOV’s contention to the contrary,” she claimed. “Súmate will continue to apply for NED and other grants.”

Initially, the U.S. government supported her approach. In 2005, then-President George W. Bush welcomed Machado to the White House, where he openly supported her. Not long after the meeting, Machado announced that the United States would provide Súmate with additional funding.

Concerned about how the Venezuelan government might respond, U.S. diplomats in Venezuela, who were closely coordinating with Súmate, called for some adjustments. Their main advice was to continue supporting Súmate while making it appear as if there was some distance between Súmate and the United States.

“A continuing, too evident, public identification with the U.S. could now be counterproductive,” the diplomats warned. “At the same time, however, we need to ensure that Súmate has the resources it needs to exploit this new vantage point it enjoys.”

Not only have U.S. officials remained silent about these past moves, but they have been employing many of the same tactics. Taking the approach favored by U.S. diplomats, officials in Washington have been trying to appear distant from the opposition while remaining supportive.

During the most recent election, the Biden administration prepared for multiple scenarios, including ways of supporting the opposition in the case that Maduro was declared the winner. With its public diplomacy, it has framed the vote as a struggle by an admirable and heroic opposition against a corrupt and fraudulent government, just as past administrations have done.

In perhaps its most striking move, Biden administration declared that the opposition won the election, even without having access to the data that administration officials repeatedly said is necessary for confirming the results. After spending days demanding that the Venezuelan government release detailed polling data, the administration went ahead and announced the opposition’s victory anyway.

“Venezuelan opposition and civil society provided decisive evidence showing that Edmundo González received a majority of the votes in this election,” State Department Spokesperson Vedant Patel claimed.

Indeed, U.S. officials are once again throwing their support behind the opposition. At the same time that they are demanding that the Venezuelan government be transparent about the results, they are keeping quiet about their own efforts to empower the opposition and achieve regime change.

Until the United States lifts its sanctions and ends its meddling, the people of Venezuela will never participate in elections that are free from manipulation, just as Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted they deserve.

It was a spectacular parade of lighted boats filled with some of the best athletes in the world that sailed up the Seine to open the 2024 Olympics. Among them, second in line following the Greek team, traditionally the first to enter the Olympic stadium, was a small craft filled with 37 competitors in white uniforms, grinning and waving to the thousands of spectators. Their flag carrier was boxer Cindy Ngamba. A few days later she would win the first Olympic medal for her team.

But Ngamba, from Cameroon, did not win that bronze medal for her home country. And the flag that Ngamba, from Cameroon, and her co-flag-bearer Yahya al Ghotany, from Syria, waved proudly above their heads was not that of either their countries. Ngamba and al Ghotany are members of the Refugee Olympic Team, carrying the Olympic flag and wearing the five interlocked circles on their jackets. Their flag is raised to the notes of the Olympic hymn, not their national anthems.

The idea of a refugee team first emerged in 2016—and unfortunately not much has changed. Like before, all of the athletes on the team have been forced from their homes by some combination of war, exploding climate change, massive human rights violations, and economic crisis. This year the 37 members of the Refugee Olympic Team have something else in common: all of their home countries are facing often crippling U.S. economic sanctions.

This year the 37 members of the Refugee Olympic Team have something else in common: all of their home countries are facing often crippling U.S. economic sanctions.

The Rio Olympics in 2016 took place in the midst of the mass displacement crisis resulting from the civil war in Syria. At that time, there were 67 million people in the world forcibly displaced, a population comparable to that of France and bigger than those of Italy or South Africa. If it were a country, Refugee Nation would have been the 23rd largest population in the world.

By the time of the Tokyo games in 2021, Refugee Nation had grown to 82 million and was then the 20th largest in the world, situated just between Thailand and Germany.

And this year, as the 2024 Olympic torch was lit in Paris, the number of forcibly displaced people has soared to 107 million, and Refugee Nation has risen through the ranks to become the 15th largest population in the world—just behind Egypt.

Forced displacement has been on the rise for a very long time. And the conditions driving people from their homes—war, repression, economic and climate crises—are on the rise as well. In 2016 war was the biggest reason people were forced to leave their homes. By 2021 wars were still raging, but climate crises and especially the Covid-19 pandemic were creating refugees by the millions.

And all those crises—and the resulting escalation in forced migration—were and continue to be made significantly worse by U.S. economic sanctions. Two years before the Rio Olympics, the UN Human Rights Council expressed alarm at “the disproportionate and indiscriminate human costs of unilateral sanctions and their negative effects on the civilian population.”

In Iran, for example, the U.S. imposed extreme sanctions in 2018 when then-President Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal despite recognition by the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency that Tehran was in compliance with the deal’s requirements. The sanctions’ impact on civilians was dire. According to Human Rights Watch, the sanctions “pose a serious threat to Iranians’ right to health and access to essential medicines,” something especially dangerous during the Covid-19 pandemic that was about to hit. While the Biden administration lifted some of those Trump-era sanctions, many remain in place and were significantly tightened in April 2024. Fourteen members of the Olympic Refugee Team are from Iran.

Whatever the specific conditions that forced each of them to leave their homes, U.S. policy is one of the factors that made things worse in their countries.

In Afghanistan, sanctions cause famine. In 2022, head of the International Rescue Committee and former UK foreign minister David Miliband told the U.S. Senate that the policy of cutting Afghanistan off from financial flows—aka sanctions—was “the proximate cause of this starvation crisis.” Five of the Refugee Team come from Afghanistan.

The 37 athletes brought audiences to their feet, on the banks of the Seine and on screens around the world. But the triumph and beauty of the Refugee Team, and all that these young people have accomplished despite having been forced to leave their homes, cannot hide the stark reality that mass displacement on a global scale has become the new normal. And whatever the specific conditions that forced each of them to leave their homes, U.S. policy is one of the factors that made things worse in their countries.

Providing world-class athletes dispossessed from their homes a chance to compete in the Olympic games is a gift—to them and their communities, and to the rest of us watching and cheering them on. But at the end of the day, the need for such a team speaks to our failure—to stop the normalization of forced displacement, and to reverse the conditions that create it in the first place. Including ending U.S. economic sanctions. The chance to win a medal in Paris is great—but wouldn’t it be better if these amazing athletes could instead win the right to return safely home instead?

At a time when all three major nuclear powers are upgrading their nuclear arsenals, when Russian leader Vladimir Putin has threatened that there are circumstances in which he would consider using such weapons in Ukraine, and when the one remaining U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement is hanging by a thread, the last thing the world needs is an accelerated nuclear arms race.

But someone forgot to tell the Heritage Foundation, which just issued a report that, if implemented, would spark a nuclear competition that would rival the worst days of the Cold War.

The Heritage report summarizes its proposed nuclear buildup as follows:

These expansions will include a larger ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force, additional warheads on America’s ground-based strategic deterrent, and a modest road-mobile variant of the ground-based strategic deterrent. In the immediate term, the United States will upload non-strategic nuclear warheads from the ready reserve stockpile to existing theater capabilities.

Beyond its jargon-laced call for more nuclear weapons, the Heritage report makes the jaw dropping claim that its proposal to expand most elements of the U.S. nuclear force is just a “modest” increase. Indeed, the document suggests that its proposal to deploy more nuclear weapons of more types on land and sea should be the first step toward an even larger buildup that will have to wait until there are enough new nuclear production facilities available.

Nukes without end, anyone?

The stated rationale for this dangerous buildup is that the nuclear landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, most notably due to the possibility of facing not one but two nuclear rivals with comparable arsenals—Russia, and now China. But it’s not obvious that an unrestrained buildup is the best way to address this challenge, should it actually materialize.

A better way forward... would be to start serious arms control discussions between the U.S. and China in the context of other efforts to reduce tensions in their relationship.

The Heritage report asserts that its proposals are meant to prevent rather than spark a nuclear conflict. But it doubles down on the current nuclear “triad” of land, air, and sea-based nuclear weapons—a destabilizing posture that makes a nuclear conflict more likely.

In particular, as experts from former defense secretary William Perry to the late Daniel Ellsberg have pointed out, keeping the land-based element of the triad—intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—increases nuclear risks. That’s because possessing land-based missiles means that a president would have to decide whether to launch them in a matter of minutes upon warning of an attack, thereby increasing the possibility of an accidental nuclear war triggered by a false alarm.

Instead of proposing to eliminate ICBMs, the Heritage report suggests making them mobile, an idea that was proposed by the Reagan administration in the 1980s and referred to as the “MX missile”—later, and apparently without irony, called the “Peacekeeper.”

The idea of mobile basing was ultimately abandoned due to a combination of technical challenges and opposition by ranchers and other residents of Western states where the MX was to be located. Going to the expense and political turmoil that a revival of an MX-style system would entail makes no sense given that land-based missiles serve no useful defensive purpose.

Suggesting that the United States pursue a scheme that is as unworkable now as it was 40 years ago clearly demonstrates that the Heritage report is mired in the past, even as it claims to be putting forward a future-focused plan.

Producing more nuclear weapons on the U.S. side will not convince China to rein in its nuclear expansion. More likely it will convince Beijing to build even more nuclear weapons of its own. The net result will be an escalating arms race that will leave both sides more vulnerable. A non-military approach is desperately needed. Unfortunately, Washington has rebuffed Beijing’s proposal to adopt a mutual commitment to forswear using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, refusing to even discuss it.

A better way forward, proposed in a new issue brief representing the joint views of the Institute for Policy Studies, Justice is Global, and the Quincy Institute, would be to start serious arms control discussions between the U.S. and China in the context of other efforts to reduce tensions in their relationship. Even if talks don’t yield immediate results, they could set the stage for an agreement down the road.

The Heritage report underscores how far the U.S. has regressed since the days when former President Ronald Reagan embraced the idea of sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals and George Bush the elder ordered tactical nuclear weapons to be removed from U.S. surface ships—not as a favor to our adversaries but because it made America and the world a safer place.

Rather than re-run a Cold War-style nuclear arms competition, Washington should be seeking ways to reduce tensions with its biggest rivals. The policies proposed by the Heritage Foundation would almost certainly do the opposite.

Why—in the midst of critical negotiations to implement U.S. President Joe Biden’s plan to bring about a cease-fire in Gaza, release Israelis held captive by Hamas and a significant number of Palestinians held by Israel, and move toward a negotiated permanent end to the conflict—would Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu decide to assassinate the chief Hamas negotiator while he was visiting Iran? And why—while the U.S. says it was working to deescalate tensions with Lebanon’s Hezbollah—would Israel choose to up the ante by assassinating Hezbollah’s number two?

We know the answers to both questions: Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t interested in peace. He doesn’t want a negotiated deal to release hostages and end the war on Gaza. He doesn’t want to deescalate the conflict there or in the north with Hezbollah. And he most certainly doesn’t want a “two-state solution” that would grant the Palestinian people independence in a sovereign state of their own.

There are two things Netanyahu does want, and, at this point, both are perversely connected. Above all, he desperately wants to remain in office, because should he lose his post as prime minister, the prosecution of the corruption charges against him will continue in full force. As the charges are so serious and the evidence so clear, he will likely be convicted and humiliated. This is not speculation—it’s widely discussed in Israel and was even hinted at by President Biden in a May 28 interview with Time Magazine. When he was asked “Is Netanyahu prolonging the war for political reasons?” Biden responded, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”

Why hasn’t the administration condemned the assassinations in Beirut and Iran when they know that they will surely sabotage the efforts of negotiators?

The second reason is that Netanyahu wants the war to continue and even be accelerated. He made this clear in his remarks before U.S. Congress and in an address to the Israeli public a few days ago. He seeks “total victory,” which he defines as more than the military defeat of Israel’s enemies. Without acknowledging any Israeli culpability, he charged that the Palestinians had created a hate-filled culture which in the post-war period would require massive deradicalization—the outcome of which would have Palestinians accepting Jewish hegemony in Eretz Israel and understanding their place as a conquered and subordinate people.

This is the messianic Zionist vision that has long driven Netanyahu and which he now sees as possible, but only if all of Israel’s enemies—meaning Iran and its surrogates—are brought to heel. And this can only be realized if Israel can involve the U.S. in their regional conquest.

Netanyahu’s worldview raises several additional questions that must be considered. If we know that Netanyahu has never accepted the terms of the Biden plan, why has the president continued to maintain that it was “Israel’s plan” and placed the burden on Hamas to accept it? And if we know that Netanyahu is unwilling to make any peace agreement for fear of losing his other extremist coalition partners (who have threatened to abandon his government should he accept any terms leading to peace), why do we continue to dance around that fact? Why hasn’t the administration condemned the assassinations in Beirut and Iran when they know that they will surely sabotage the efforts of negotiators? Why, when we know that Netanyahu has no intention of completing a deal to release those held captive, do we continue to allow him to exploit the pain of their families, pretending that negotiations are close to completion, when we know they aren’t? And why, when we know that the demands and actions of Netanyahu’s extremist coalition partners are wreaking havoc in the West Bank and Jerusalem—terrorizing the Palestinian population, annexing more land, building more settlements, and erasing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination—have we been so passive and tolerant in response?

Let’s be clear: Hamas and Hezbollah are not good actors. The former was born of the brutal and sustained Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. It was nurtured by Israel to create division in the Palestinian ranks and fueled by Israel’s ruthless decades-long strangulation of the population of Gaza. The latter was born of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and by that country’s corrupt sectarian system that denied the Shia community adequate representation and resources. It was fueled by Israel’s decades-long occupation of Lebanon’s south and massive devastation of the country’s infrastructure in 2006. To be sure, both have engaged in condemnable actions. But to criticize only them, while absolving Israel of its far greater crimes, is hypocritical at best.

If the U.S. were serious about ending conflict in the region, instead of turning a blind eye to Israel’s behaviors that are deliberately designed to provoke more war, we need to stop playing games and get serious about holding Israel accountable. This leads to one final question: Why, when we continue to massively supply Israel with weapons and block all efforts to sanction their deplorable behaviors, do we expect that anything will change?

The popularity of labor unions is at a 60-year high. Everywhere you look, workers are organizing their workplaces—and winning. Tired of rising costs and rising CEO pay, everyday people are standing up to their bosses and demanding their wages rise as well.

Lawmakers, too, are waking up to the fact that supporting workers isn’t just good politics; it’s the best way to make our economy work for more people.

Until recently, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly was among only a handful of Democratic lawmakers who had not publicly supported the Richard L. Trump Protecting the Right to Organize Act, better known as the PRO Act.

The most significant worker rights legislation in decades, the PRO Act would restore organizing protections that have been weakened by decades of corporate attacks and hold companies accountable that violate workers’ rights.

We’re encouraged by the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris co-sponsored the PRO Act during her time in the Senate. And if elected in November, she has committed to following through on the Biden Administration's pledge to pass the bill and sign it into law.

When the labor movement heard that Senator Kelly was being vetted as a potential Vice President, union and community leaders raised the alarm—most privately, and a few publicly:

“Why would the Democrats even consider a senator for the vice president if the senator doesn’t support the PRO Act?” John Samuelsen, president of the Transport Workers Union, asked ABC News.

“That’s a hard no,” tweeted Richard Bensinger, former organizing director of the AFL-CIO.

Suddenly in the spotlight, Senator Kelly quickly corrected course and joined the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats committed to passing the PRO Act.

“Unions loom large in our life, and I’m supportive of the PRO Act,” Kelly told the Huffington Post Wednesday. “I would have voted for it on Day 1. I would vote for it today.”

Senator Kelly is not alone in burnishing his pro-union credentials amidst the Veepstakes. We’ve seen Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, and Andy Beshear tout their support for unions. It’s an important moment in our politics—and a telling one. To be considered a Democratic rising star, voters expect you to be on the side of working people.

The refusal of any candidate to support the PRO Act should raise a huge red flag with voters. The legislation is not only a top legislative priority of the labor movement, but a priority of a broad coalition of progressive, climate, and civil rights groups—including the Working Families Party and fellow members of the Worker Power Coalition. Many of our country’s labor laws are more than eighty years old, and we know that to make the economy work for all of us we need to bring our laws into the 21st century.

We’re encouraged by the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris co-sponsored the PRO Act during her time in the Senate. And if elected in November, she has committed to following through on the Biden Administration's pledge to pass the bill and sign it into law.

Trump, on the other hand, wants to put his boot on the neck of the labor movement. His top advisors have put together a 900-page plan called Project 2025 that calls for gutting worker protections, repealing prevailing wage laws, and undermining our organizing by allowing corporations to create sham management-run unions.

Working people want to know which candidates will take on greedy corporations and level the playing field for workers. By supporting the PRO Act and standing in solidarity with unions, Democrats can show working people that they have their backs.

For the first time in years, I’ve been walking around with a smile on my face. Maybe you have, too.

The positive energy unleashed by Kamala Harris over the last two weeks is in such stark contrast to the negative energy unleashed by Trump for the last nine years that it feels as if America has had a new beginning.

Complete strangers come up to me — also smiling — and say: “At last!” Or “Isn’t it wonderful?” Or “I’m so relieved!”

Millions of Americans are mobilizing for Kamala. We’re volunteering our time and energy. We’re donating to her campaign as we’ve never donated before.

Hundreds of thousands of young people are creating pro-Kamala content for social media — a new form of political participation, as well as free advertising.

We’ve all been given new hope that Donald Trump — perhaps the worst human being ever to occupy the Oval Office — will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

(Even Olympic hero Simone Biles is into it — mocking Trump’s claim that immigrants take “Black jobs” by calling her gold-winning gymnastic performance a “Black job.”)

But wait.

I’ve been in and around politics long enough to know that our current euphoria needs to be tempered.

The election is 91 days from today. That may seem soon, but almost anything can happen between now and then. If polls are to be believed, Harris is basically tied with Trump among likely voters.

However much I believe that her positive energy will trounce his negative energy — and gain a major victory 91 days from now — and that Democrats will take control of both houses of Congress — we need to be prepared for Trump and his lackeys to mount a mammoth offensive.

We can’t allow our good feelings to drift into complacency.

Trump and his enablers will throw whatever they can at her. Even though nothing has seemed to stick so far, we must be ready for the possibility that something will.

Four reasons to expect trouble ahead:

First, the mainstream media can’t abide a love fest for long. They have to sell advertising and eyeballs, so they’ll soon turn contrarian — reporting Republican-generated opposition research about Harris. (I’m reminded of the old journalism saw that there are only two media stories — “oh, the wonder of it” and “oh, the shame of it” — and one always follows the other.)

We must be ready to respond to those charges with facts — in letters to editors, interviews with local media, public statements from groups we’re associated with, and grassroots organizing.

Second, Trump is getting desperate — and he is capable of almost anything. He knows the upcoming election is likely to mean the difference between going to jail and going scot-free — so he will pull out all the stops, including racism and misogyny.

Expect even more bigotry and lies to from him and his enablers. The cesspool will likely turn even more fetid. Sadly, enough Americans are openly or tacitly racist and misogynistic to make this a powerful ploy.

What should we do? Call out racism and misogyny, however and wherever it appears. Shame those who perpetuate bigotry. Mobilize others to call it out, too.

Third, the billionaires are starting to mobilize against her.

To take one example, Elon Musk — the richest man in the world, who has 192 million followers on X (largely because he owns the platform and can maximize his reach on it) — has started a PAC that collects highly detailed personal information. Musk’s goal is to target voters in key battleground states with tailored digital ads favoring Trump and harming Harris.

In addition, X’s AI chatbot has told millions of users — falsely — that Kamala Harris is not eligible to appear on their state’s 2024 presidential ballot.

What can you do? At the least, make it expensive for Musk to use his wealth and ownership of X this way. Boycott Tesla, urge your friends to do the same, and tell advertisers to get off the X platform.

Fourth, most House Republicans are election deniers. Speaker Mike Johnson was one the ringleaders in 2020. If Kamala wins, House Republicans could have enough votes to try to force the presidential election into the House, via the 12th Amendment, where Republicans are likely to have a majority.

We must demand that the media ask any and all Republican members of Congress being interviewed if they will accept the results of the election and will certify the results from the Electoral College — and if not, explain why not.

I don’t want to diminish the positive energy we’re enjoying now. I just want us to be realistic about what could, and almost certainly will, come next — and be prepared.

Practice nauseous optimism — hoping for the best but knowing in the pit of your stomach that the road ahead will be difficult.

And resolve that — despite the sickening techniques Trump will use against her — we will do everything in our lawful power to make Kamala Harris the next president of the United States.

Imagine my surprise when, nearly eight months ago, commenting on the state of the country as it approached the 2024 presidential election, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg noted that “Biden has set himself the task of trying to jolt the country out of its learned helplessness in the face of Trump’s exhausting provocations.” Unbeknownst to most Americans, that term, “learned helplessness,” was profoundly and inextricably tied to this country’s disastrous post-9/11 Global War on Terror and, in particular, its horrifying torture program. Yet there it was, being used in a new context—one that, while perhaps altered by the president’s recent decision not to run for a second term, has been employed with remarkable frequency in the intervening months, especially recently, when it comes to this country’s presidential future.

As the pundits weighed in on U.S. President Joe Biden’s abysmal performance at that June 27 debate with former PresidentDonald Trump and cast doubt on his prospects for reelection, “learned helplessness“ was used over and over again in the days leading up to his withdrawal from the presidential race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris. Two days after the debate, for instance, The Economist, focusing on Biden’s refusal to declare himself a non-candidate for the presidency, concluded that “many [Democrats] have fallen into learned helplessness,” as evidenced by the gap between their private doubts and their public assertions.

In this distinctly disturbing moment in our history, is it possible that an all-American version of despair and hopelessness has changed in light of Joe Biden’s backing out of the presidential race?

Writing for the San Francisco-based progressive daily, 48hills, Bruce Mirkin chastised the Democrats for choosing hopelessness over hope. “Instead of ‘yes, we can,'” he wrote, “the instinctive response from a good portion of the folks who should be helping to defend democracy seems to be ‘no, we can’t.’” He then labeled the party’s inaction “learned helplessness.” Jordan Zakarin, writing for the Center for American Progress Action’s Progress Report, extended that diagnosis from “the worst debate performance in modern history” to the larger moment in Washington. He pointed, for instance, to Attorney General Merrick Garland having “slow-walked prosecuting Donald Trump.” “It is,” he concluded, “a learned helplessness,” a “preemptive surrender.”

The question is: What should we make of the concept of “learned helplessness”? Where did it come from and what are the remedies writ large? In this distinctly disturbing moment in our history, is it possible that an all-American version of despair and hopelessness has changed in light of Joe Biden’s backing out of the presidential race?

The Psychological Concept

To better understand the sudden shower of references to “learned helplessness,” a little history is in order. In the late 1960s, psychologist Martin Seligman coined the term while conducting experiments with dogs. He had accidentally stumbled on the fact that dogs that experienced electrical shocks without having any control over starting or stopping them were ultimately rendered strangely passive. They proved unwilling to move, even to escape further mistreatment.

After more experiments demonstrated that being subjected to severe pain or stress did indeed induce a state of inaction in dogs, Seligman then turned to humans and discovered that individuals who had suffered an act or acts of trauma and abuse continued, well after the painful incident, to show signs of depression and anxiety that rendered them completely unable to act. They continued to exist, he discovered, in a state of profound resignation and inaction, long after the traumatic moment in which they found themselves powerless. Afterward, they were convinced that nothing was under their control, that any action they might take would be futile, and that failure was inevitable, should they even try to act. (Later studies suggested that some elderly individuals might also experience such a state of profound resignation and inaction in response to “stressful life events,” at times in association with dementia.)

But here’s the truly strange thing: More than three decades later in the years after the 9/11 attacks, Seligman’s concept of “learned helplessness” would be quite purposely baked into the interrogation and torture program created and implemented for war on terror detainees by American officials during the administration of President George W. Bush. As the executive summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s torture report explained, one of the two psychologists contracted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the purpose of devising its interrogation program “had reviewed research on ‘learned helplessness,’ in which individuals might become passive and depressed in response to adverse or uncontrollable events. He theorized,” the report added, “that inducing such a state could encourage a detainee to cooperate and provide information.”

The goal was simple: to reduce that prisoner to a profound state of complete paralysis and disempowerment in which, having no hope of relief or escape, he would do whatever his captors wanted.

That psychologist, Bruce Mitchell, even met with Seligman while designing techniques to use on war-on-terror detainees suspected of ties to the 9/11 terror group al Qaeda and its leadership at the secret “black sites” the CIA set up globally. (Seligman, it seems, had no idea of the horrors Mitchell and his associates were planning.) Ironically enough, Seligman’s findings and his concept of “learned helplessness” would indeed become a basic part of the development of the CIA’s torture program. (Seligman would come to condemn the use of the concept for interrogations at those black sites. As The Washington Post reported, “When [Seligman] later learned through media accounts how it was employed—for enhanced interrogation—he issued a statement: ‘I am grieved and horrified that good science, which has helped so many people overcome depression, may have been used for such bad purposes.’”)

To induce a profound state of helplessness, those post-9/11 captives were sent to the CIA’s black sites where they were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” designed to elicit information from them. Their torture included beatings, being smashed into walls, being hung by their limbs in excruciatingly painful positions, forced nudity, sodomy, and repeated sleep deprivation, among other things. The CIA also used waterboarding (subjecting detainees to the feeling of drowning), placed them in coffin-like boxes, and threatened to use a gun or a power drill on those who refused to give answers sought by their interrogators. Just last month, in a pre-trial hearing at the forever prison the Bush administration set up offshore—and away from the federal court system—at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in 2002, such techniques were once again described in detail, this time by John Bruce Jessen, the psychologist who, along with Mitchell, designed the nightmarish interrogation program. In addition to his testimony, he also demonstrated the technique of “walling,” which involved slamming a detainee’s head against a wall.

The goal was simple: to reduce that prisoner to a profound state of complete paralysis and disempowerment in which, having no hope of relief or escape, he would do whatever his captors wanted. Detainees would see that there was no way out but to answer their captors’ questions, which, it turned out, often led them, in desperation and a state of learned helplessness, to confess to things they hadn’t done, to confess to whatever their captors wanted to hear.

Having studied and written about the nightmare of those prisoners and Guantánamo for so many years now, it’s been supremely jarring to see the term “learned helplessness” reemerge in connection to the current unnerving state of American politics and the 2024 presidential election. Yet, in many ways, it seems a strangely appropriate lens through which to view the world of Donald Trump and the rest of us. It was true, as many commented, that a sense of learned helplessness indisputably crept into the mindset of so many of us in this country—at least prior to Joe Biden’s decision not to pursue a second term as president.

The American people have indeed suffered multiple stressful, even traumatic experiences in recent years. The shock of a government that didn’t protect them on September 11, 2001; the devastating experience of a president who refused to protect them from Covid-19, as bodies piled up on the streets of this country; the winnowing away of rights and liberties once protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court—from the overturning of Roe v. Wade to a rash of recent decisions, including one that gave a president essential immunity in relation to more or less anything he did, no matter how devastating; the inability of the courts to proceed in their prosecutions of Donald Trump; the nearly paralyzed state of a riven Congress amid an economic reality that has led so many younger Americans to be unable to purchase their own homes or send their children to college—all have collectively cowed the population. Even before both the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and the dismal debate performance of Biden, a sense of learned helplessness seemed well in place, and understandably so.

The Republican Party has also succumbed to a state of learned helplessness. One after another, former opponents of Trump and the MAGA ideology he stands for have succumbed to his agenda and given up on pursuing their own independent goals. Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance is certainly a case in point. Having formerly called out Trump for his lack of morality, his xenophobia, and his racism, as well as for being a “total fraud” and “America’s Hitler,” he is now on board with the ideas he once said he deplored, including, for example, an untethered anti-immigration stance that calls for massive deportations of illegal immigrants. Similarly, Trump’s Republican election opponent Nikki Haley has given up her “legacy of blunt assessments and brutal takedowns” of the former president, as The Nation’s John Nichols has aptly described her opposition to Trump, whom she once described as “a dangerous stooge of Russian president Vladimir Putin.”

The question is: What, if anything, does the research tell us about curing such a state?

Is There, in Fact, a Cure?

Psychologists do point to remedies for such a profound state of hopelessness. They suggest several healing paths forward, including therapy to examine the causes of one’s despair and to discover constructive paths beyond it; exercise to stimulate the body and the mind; and a commitment to “learned optimism,” a pattern of reaction geared to expecting the best rather than the worst out of any situation. As Psychology Today points out, “Seligman later developed the concept of learned optimism. By explaining events to ourselves in a constructive manner and developing a positive internal dialogue, people can break free from their cycle of helplessness.” Small wins and an energized commitment to positivity are basic tenets of finding a way to “learned optimism.”

For Democrats, the idea that there could be a brighter future, one in which a sense of control replaced one of powerlessness—an election in which their presidential candidate has a viable chance of winning—has taken hold. In place of anxiety and depression, there is optimism, or at least a “cautious hope.”

If a turn toward optimism offers a way out of the helplessness of our times, perhaps we are seeing the beginning of just such an event. Recently, Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick, again invoking the term “learned helplessness,” suggested that reports of the plans of the Biden administration to back Supreme Court reform were a sign of the kind of future “systemwide cognitive reboot for American voters that seems almost inconceivable in the generalized torpor and despair of July 2024.” The headline of her article read, appropriately enough, “Are We Finally Letting Go of Our Learned-Helplessness Syndrome Around the Supreme Court?”

So, too, the outpouring of energy and excitement following Biden’s decision to bow out of the presidential race and the enthusiasm for newer, younger Democratic Party leadership—and for Vice President Kamala Harris, in particular—already seems eons removed from the head-shaking resignation of Democratic voters confronting a “choice” between an aging Joe Biden and You Know Who on election day. In fact, in many ways, that new turn of affairs could be just what the doctor ordered, though, of course, a possible November election victory for Donald Trump could still put the phrase “learned helplessness” in a grimly new light.

For Democrats, the idea that there could be a brighter future, one in which a sense of control replaced one of powerlessness—an election in which their presidential candidate has a viable chance of winning—has taken hold. In place of anxiety and depression, there is optimism, or at least a “cautious hope.” Declaring her “immense pride and limitless optimism for our country’s future,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi echoed the importance of this newfound optimism when endorsing Kamala Harris as the party’s candidate for 2024. As Tim Alberta summed it up in The Atlantic, “As far back as springtime, the numbers told a straightforward story: Biden was not going to win. Democrats could only look on, powerless.” However, now, he concludes, it is the Republicans who are feeling hope and control fade away: “Sunday brought an unfamiliar feeling of powerlessness. For the first time in a long time, Trump does not control the narrative of 2024.”

Whether or not such optimism gains momentum in the potentially tumultuous days ahead remains to be seen, as does whether the Republicans can find a way out of their own potential sense of learned helplessness in the face of a changing scenario. Whatever happens, given what I know about the past use of that phrase and the nightmare of the war on terror’s use of torture, my own hope is that, with election 2024, the very concept of learned helplessness and the realities it represents, whether it applies to torture at the hands of the U.S. government or suffering at the hands of Trumpian politics, can finally be politically laid to rest.

Call it learned optimism, if you wish, but fingers crossed.

In a recent column, Paul Street wrote how there "are plenty of deadly sirens in contemporary American life but few are as powerful as the savagely time-staggered big money corporate crafted narrow spectrum major party big media candidate-centered 'quadrennial [electoral] extravaganzas'—Noam Chomsky's term—that are sold to the masses as 'politics,' the only politics that matters."

Street is absolutely right. In the thousands of years of bread and circuses—from Roman gladiators to free internet porn—never have the masses been bought off by such vapid shtick.

This is our presidential election year, and a batshit crazy one with two demented geezers slobbering through a debate that would elicit head shakes and chuckles if it occurred in a bar or in the waiting room for a Peter Pan bus. Then one geezer gave up the ghost....I don't have to retell the story. You might not know the name of your home galaxy, but you know Kamala Harris and Donald Trump—you can hear their voices scratching and echoing in the passageways winding through your brain. You see their faces—as though they pressed up threateningly just inches from your nose.

If a mass shooter sprayed your local Big Y with gunfire you might offer a minute of thoughts and prayers, but then the election would gently bring you back to your reserved seat in the collective fantasy, because this election—just like all the others—will decide the fate of creation, the balance of force between democracy and Nazi wannabeism, and pretty much everything else. This election will determine if the greenness of trees, the blueness of skies, the beige hue of dirt and the wetness of water continues for another four years or not.

Now my porch light shines on a dead zone—no moths, no spiders, no nothing. When did this happen? A year ago? Five years ago? I wasn't fucking paying attention. Don't ask me. I am watching election coverage on MSNBC—where no one dares to talk about moths.

But I just discovered something so secretly horrific, that it demands our complete attention—turn off the election coverage. You might have discovered the exact same thing. It is the nature of collapsing cultures to keep secrets out in the open. The collapse itself is a secret, even when it loudly and openly proclaims itself. We are completely riveted to banal spectacles, to siren songs as Street writes, and almost nothing can bring us back to nominal reality. While we are diddling away time on this stupid election, the shit has hit the fan. What sort of jolt would slap us hard enough to wake us all up?

Maybe an alien invasion would knock the cobwebs aside. A techno-superior, intergalactic army of cosmic conquerors claiming our world for the flag of some nameless solar system at the far edge of the Laniakea Supercluster—that might reset our priorities. Let Trump build a wall between Andromeda and the Milky Way—and boast that Andromeda will pay for it.

Another thing that might alter our perspective would be a super volcano eruption. Human history has yet to see the fury that patiently gathers beneath the paper thin layers of crustal plates. We have had tiny pop-gun doses of tectonic rage like Vesuvius or Krakatoa, but never the real deal. If Yellowstone, Campi Flegrei, or Lake Toba blow their calderas, that might reorder our priorities in a hurry. I could describe the cubic miles of homicidal magma, the sulfuric, sun blocking emissions, and subsequent buildup of greenhouse gasses, but you can go to YouTube to savor a limitless collection of videos that recreate volcanic Armageddon with special effects.

Unfortunately, neither an alien takeover nor a super-volcanic display of cross continental lava can equal the destruction already hiding in plain sight.

Scientists tell us that greenhouse gasses now increase in atmospheric density at a speed ten times faster than the velocity created by Permian mega eruptions. The Siberian Traps super volcanoes (that drove the mother of all mass extinctions 252 million years ago) would sit on the bench of a dream team comprised of Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and Saudi Aramco.

Allow me to digress and obliquely approach my main point by going back in time - not deep time, but my own time. It is 1964 and I am a high school freshman playing basketball from sunup to sundown with hoop dreams percolating in my head. My two elder companions and summer league teammates (let's call them Doug and Dobie) walk along the border of North Hartford one evening and talk about their philosophy regarding girls and fighting. The topic is about unwritten rules - if you are out with a girl and someone makes a provocative remark, do you stare him down, push him aggressively or throw a sucker punch? This discourse strikes me rather abstractly as I had never been "out with a girl.” The conversation makes me uncomfortable—my naivete will inevitably be targeted. Fortunately, the ritualized display of preening masculinity is preempted by a street light mounted on a telephone pole. Around the light, in a fluttering frenzy, fly thousands of moths.

The sheer number of them creates a mosaic of gyrating shadows at our feet. While each moth flaps silently, the utter mass of them, the aggregate force of weightless creatures, creates a dry, hissing sound—evil and magnetic. These creatures belong to the spirit world—a place greater than our lives of hoops, school and adolescent pretense. We all look up at the lamp and mutter "holy fuck."

That many beating wings have the capacity to induce awe that we don't normally associate with the lowly moth. Moths have, like all insects, the superpower of industrial breeding. They overwhelm the law of averages with such prolific egg production that the remnants of the hungry Mesozoic (birds) can't scarf their way to a mothless world. Moths can gather in dizzying swarms that mock mortality. These communities, swirling vortex-like around every light bulb, prove the strength of numbers.

The ancestors (Holometabola ) of moths and butterflies (Lepitoptera) evolved some 300 million years ago—as such, this superorder that emerged in the late Carboniferous has survived three of the five mass extinctions of deep time—specifically, the aforementioned end Permian, the Triassic and the Cretaceous/Paleogene. The worst, most murderous conditions that mother-nature can concoct in her most terrible moods have never derailed our fluttering masters of hard times.

Moths have evolved spectacular means of adjustment—including the ability to consume the nectar of flowering plants (which emerged in the Cretaceous) and the capacity to sense sonar waves emitted by bats that prey upon them. The leptitopterans have radiated into 180,000 species. This mind blowing fact might be weighed against the six and a half thousand mammalian species currently struggling to limp into the next century.

Moths are one of the most critical pollinators. They also break down rotting leaves and create fertile humus to nourish fields and forests. Their larvae (caterpillars) sustain countless famished species. Moths are the superglue holding the biosphere together—or rather, they once were.

Unfortunately, I have bad news. While I had my face buried in the internet, moths went extinct—at least the sorts that hovered about street lamps in clouds of organic confusion while Doug, Dobie and I looked on in wonder a mere six decades ago. The street lamps in Northampton, Massachusetts—where I now reside as an old man—are now empty, lonely, and silent places.

And in my backyard, funnel spiders would build their webs next to the porch light and grow to enormous sizes feasting on the moths that fell into their ancient traps. Now my porch light shines on a dead zone—no moths, no spiders, no nothing. When did this happen? A year ago? Five years ago? I wasn't fucking paying attention. Don't ask me. I am watching election coverage on MSNBC—where no one dares to talk about moths.

We have gotten the narrative ass backward. The dystopian story of human extinction formulated that we would destroy ourselves, and the bugs would be heirs to our misfortune. But no—the toxic brew of extermination is taking them out first. The good thing about mass extinction is that T-Rex and the Gorgonopsia had ambitious heirs. But we have created a mass extinction so powerful that heirs have become irrelevant - think about that for a moment. The degradation of nature is now threatening to be total. The toxic sludge, industrial fumes, agricultural poisons, plastics, greenhouse gasses, artificial light, nuclear waste and deforested wastelands have snuck up on us like a hooded assailant in a dark ally.

The dystopian story of human extinction formulated that we would destroy ourselves, and the bugs would be heirs to our misfortune. But no—the toxic brew of extermination is taking them out first.

My anecdotal musings may not suffice as an official signature on the Lepitopteran death certificate, but the experts say that bugs are collapsing at record rates—unprecedented in evolutionary history.

While I announce the complete demise of moths in my backyard and my street, a study in the UK has moth populations down 32% since 1968 in the UK. A study in Scotland puts the local moth decline at almost 50%.

A recent study in a small Florida city concluded:

Comparing the rural site with the greatest total abundance and the urban site with the lowest total abundance across the entire year, we documented a 68% reduction in caterpillar frass mass, an 80% reduction in pooled micro-moth abundance, and a staggering 97% reduction in pooled macro-moth abundance.

Macro-moths means simply, big moths. The decline in population referenced above is not about a reduction across time, but a comparison between populations in urban parks and rural woodlands. Proximity to human beings has not gone well for moths.

And it’s not just moths—it’s all insects. Researcher, Francisco Sanchez-Bayo regarding insect population declines, told The Guardian in 2019: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.”

So scientists have been talking about a total insect genocide for a while now, and after a lifetime of obliviousness, I suddenly notice that the moths that have existed in vast numbers throughout my life—creatures that have flourished by the trillions of trillions for almost half the time since the "Cambrian Explosion" have now dropped dead in a finger snap. I could write about birds, bees, butterflies or a million other clades, orders and species getting fucked by humanity’s satanic religion—capitalism.

Imagine yourself going to the doctor for a routine checkup and being told that you have metastatic cancer. "It is in your bones, your brain, in your blood and has colonized the organs in your body." The biosphere has been sent to hospice, and we are all on a morphine drip called election coverage.

I don't know if Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are going to debate, but I am certain that if they do, neither one will say a word about dead and dying moths. Insects are the proletariat of the planet's organic systems, and you can depend on US politicians not to talk about the working class.

Eleven of the top 50 individual contributors to political campaigns this election cycle work in the finance industry—specifically in private equity—and are betting big on congressional and presidential candidates who will protect one very special federal tax break worth billions of dollars to them: the carried interest loophole.

So far this election cycle, these 11 private equity billionaires have already contributed more than double the amount that more than 147 private equity firms pumped into federal elections in all of the 2016 election cycle. Private equity—which largely entails rich investors buying and selling companies—is only a part of a larger finance industry that includes hedge funds, securities firms, banks, and investment companies and managers.

This loophole, of course, is not the only tax perk that private equity firms favor. They also push to keep the tax rate on capital gains much lower than the tax rate on ordinary income.

Finance—securities and investments—tops the list of industries giving the most money to date this round, with more than $1 billion in contributions to candidates, parties, and PACs, according to the nonpartisan political funding tracker Open Secrets.

The 11 private equity leaders have contributed more than $223 million to congressional and presidential candidates and the super PACs that support them, accounting for almost 20% of all money contributed by thousands of companies in the finance sector, according to Open Secrets data. During the 2016 election cycle, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reported that the 147 private equity firms it analyzed contributed $92 million to candidates and super PACs.

The carried interest tax deduction allows private equity investment managers to pay a lower 23.8% tax rate on the capital gains passed on to them as compensation rather than the top income tax rate of up to 40.8% they would pay on the same amount if it were considered wage or salary income.

“Carried interest is a form of compensation paid to investment executives like private equity, hedge fund and venture capital managers,” CNBC explains. “The managers receive a share of the fund’s profits—typically 20% of the total—which is divided among them proportionally. The profit is called carried interest, and is also known as ‘carry’ or ‘profits interest.’”

The $223-million investment these 11 private equity billionaires are making in campaign contributions in hopes of keeping the loophole intact will save the industry an estimated $14 billion in taxes over 10 years, as Senate Democrats pointed out in 2022 when they were forced to let go of legislation to get rid of it.

This loophole, of course, is not the only tax perk that private equity firms favor. They also push to keep the tax rate on capital gains much lower than the tax rate on ordinary income. And some private equity managers have other public policy interests, like billionaire Jeffery Yass, the largest individual donor this election cycle, who gives millions of dollars to school choice groups and other conservative causes.

On April 15, 2024, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Carried Interest Fairness Act (S. 4123), which she co-sponsored with 14 other senators, in order to eliminate the tax loophole, something that Democrats have long sought to fix. The proposed legislation treats the buying and selling of companies as ordinary income if that is a firm’s primary business. “By closing the carried interest loophole, we’ll make our tax code fairer for working families, cut the deficit, and ensure that those at the top of the food chain aren’t exploiting the system to further enrich themselves,” Baldwin said in a press release.

While 90% of the private equity contributions made so far this election cycle have gone to Republicans or the PACs that support them, not every Democrat is opposed to eliminating the loophole.

Before Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) left the party to become an independent in 2022, she “courted private equity titans and received the maximum allowed amount from the PACs of leading private equity firms such as The Carlyle Group, along with the industry’s trade organization, the American Investment Council (AIC),” CMD reported.

Private equity billionaires have dramatically increased their spending since Sinema decided not to run for reelection this year.

In 2017, as part of then-President Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the length of time needed to trigger the long-term capital gains tax was raised from one year to three just for private equity. The loophole itself was kept in the bill because of fierce industry lobbying, even though Trump groused that those who took the tax break were “getting away with murder.”

Former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden both pledged to get rid of the unfair tax loophole. Obama never followed through, and Biden dropped the loophole fix from the Inflation Reduction Act due to opposition from Sinema. Anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist compares the situation to a dog chasing a bus. “You didn’t mean to catch the bus, you meant to whine about the bus,” he famously said.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has made few comments so far on private equity and has not yet expressed her views about the carried interest loophole.

In his 1930 essay “ Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”, the economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that future generations would someday work 15 hours a week. The theory was based on anticipated advances in technology and productivity. Keynes’ theory has a strange kind of prescience today (though not quite in the way he expected). What’s called the “gig economy”—a labor market that relies heavily on part-time, temporary, or freelance work—resembles his prediction in a backward sort of way, as numerous industries and occupations have moved away from fixed, stable employment toward short-term flexibility.

Conclusive data on the current size of the independent contractor workforce in the U.S. is difficult to find. Different sources disagree on the scale. In 2017, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 6.9% of workers in America were classified as independent contractors (lower than in 2005). However, the Covid-19 pandemic increased demand for delivery services and rideshare apps (Uber, Doordash, Instacart). A study published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that independent contractors may be around 15% of all workers.

Gig workers are not a particularly large slice of our labor force, but they represent a microcosm of a larger trend—the effects of post-Fordism (post-industrialism). In the 1970s, America transitioned away from the Fordist model of labor, where people worked on assembly lines in the mass production of goods. As this was happening, wages began to stagnate, union membership declined, and the U.S. lost its domestic manufacturing base. The New Deal coalition was dissolved, and the working class became less and less associated with the Democratic Party.

Keeping people stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs in the service sector without security or benefits is a poor substitute for fair compensation, and companies cannot rely on it forever.

A major change has taken place in the economic organization of our society. As social safety nets and union membership have been eroded, job precarity has become a permanent state for many Americans. In the gig economy, your position and status are constantly in flux. Maybe you do your job online in a hybrid or work-from-home format. Maybe you move around between periods of unemployment and temporary or part-time employment. Under the Fordist model, a person could expect to work at the same place for their entire lives with rising standards of living. The gig economy, by contrast, is a fractured labor market where work is increasingly isolated, casualized, and digitized, and limited compensation and benefits are the norm. Gig work is particularly common among younger generations. Nearly 45% of millennial professionals do freelance work (many in addition to other jobs).

In 1997, Alan Greenspan, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before Congress, and he attributed the success of the economy to growing “worker insecurity.” Essentially, workers were too worried about keeping their jobs to ask for higher wages or benefits. They no longer had the same kind of job security, which meant they were in a weaker bargaining position. If you’re an employer, this kind of relationship is ideal. You keep labor costs low, and profits high.

Nowhere is this basic lack of fairness more evident than in gig positions. If you’re classified as an independent contractor, there are a whole host of legal rights that don’t apply to you. It varies by state, but in Massachusetts, for example, you don’t have a right to a minimum wage, overtime, or sick pay. You’re not eligible for unemployment benefits. You’ll almost certainly have a harder time finding health, dental, or vision insurance. Benefits such as retirement, worker’s compensation, and family leave are also generally not offered. You most likely won’t get paid time off for public holidays. Anti-discrimination laws don’t protect you, and you can’t legally sue your employer for wrongful termination (although there are exceptions if the employer has violated a written contract). Independent contractor status also severely limits the possibilities of labor organizing.

There are some benefits to independent contract work (it’s easier to set your own hours, work remotely), but in an ideal labor market, people would have a choice between flexibility and stability. They wouldn’t be forced into either category. For many people, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

In 2020, rideshare drivers in California fought a bitter fight to avoid being classified as independent contractors. The state had previously passed Assembly Bill 5, which required rideshare drivers to be classified as employees. Uber, Lyft, and other companies drafted and campaigned for Prop. 22 to exclude drivers from being classified as employees and spent more than $200 million supporting the measure, according to OpenSecrets. The U.S. Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board also supported the bill. In 2020, the measure passed.

As gig positions become more and more common, we can expect to see similar fights in other industries, with similar results. Companies can essentially rewrite labor laws in their favor, and poor and working people bear the brunt of this.

Alternatives to Uber have also suffered. A significant share of the market has been taken away from traditional cab companies. New York City’s taxi medallion system, for instance, has faced a collapse. The medallions (which are required to operate a yellow cab) once sold for up to $1 million, but have plummeted in value, now going for as little as $90,000. Many cab drivers have worked for years to earn these medallions, planning to lease them to new drivers to finance their retirement. These people have essentially had their savings wiped out.

In 2018, New York drivers experienced a string of suicides related to the increased difficulties of earning a living in these positions. In February, 2018, a livery driver named Doug Schifter committed suicide in front of City Hall. He had previously been the writer of a column in a trade publication about how app-based services were flooding his market. Later that year, a cab driver named Nicanor Ochisor hanged himself in his garage. His family publicly stated that ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft had made it impossible for him to earn a living.

In other industries, such as academia, gig workers are being similarly squeezed. Adjunct or contract-renewable professors may make less than half what tenured professors make, and often have to string together work across multiple universities, sometimes supported with tutoring, test proctoring, and other side jobs. According to survey data released in 2022 by the American Federation of Teachers, “a quarter of adjunct faculty have an annual salary below the federal poverty line.” These professors often have limited or no benefits, and no guarantee of work past the current semester.

These are just a few examples. As the “gig” model has taken hold, many traditional, stable jobs have been put in jeopardy, and many of the hard-fought rights associated with them are being dismantled or watered down. We’ve entered the age of casualized work, but for the opposite reason Keynes predicted—not because we’re basking in leisure, but because we’re trapped in a state of precarity. Productivity has increased, but these gains have not been evenly distributed.

Aside from being unfair, this model is also unsustainable. Keeping people stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs in the service sector without security or benefits is a poor substitute for fair compensation, and companies cannot rely on it forever. The essential hollowness of this model is in plain view, and the subordination of workers to these demands will, sooner or later, collapse. It’s impossible to predict when exactly this will happen, or on what scale, but it can be predicted that it will happen eventually.

How can this be overcome? A sharp reversal of course is needed. Working conditions are unlikely to improve unless we can rebuild the popular institutions which guarantee our rights. Labor unions in particular can establish paths to long-term job security and multi-year contracts as industry standards. Additionally, peer countries have addressed the shortcomings of gig work by offering things like paid family leave, sick leave and universal healthcare to the population. The U.S. needs to encourage broad, expansive change to address these growing concerns, and re-write the terms of our social contract to create routes to economic security. If there is to be any kind of positive development in this area of the labor market, it will depend on these efforts.

Faced with a divided Democratic base of support, Kamala Harris is seeking a “middle ground” on Israel’s war against Gaza. Is such a thing possible?

The post Half the Genocide first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

In the wake of President Joe Biden's decision to step aside, the Democratic Party finds itself at a crucial crossroads. As Vice President Kamala Harris emerges as the presumptive nominee for the 2024 presidential election, a complex debate is unfolding within progressive circles. While the threat posed by Republican nominee Donald Trump's potential return to power looms large, some prominent progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, are hesitating to offer their immediate and unconditional endorsement of Harris. This reluctance has sparked criticism from certain quarters, but a closer examination reveals that this measured approach may be both strategically sound and necessary for the long-term health of the progressive movement.

By resisting calls for unconditional loyalty to party nominees, progressives are advocating for a more dynamic, responsive political system where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, even within party lines.

The stakes of the 2024 election cannot be overstated. Trump's potential return to the White House is widely viewed as an existential threat to liberal democracy. His previous term was marked by attempts to undermine democratic institutions, a disregard for the rule of law, and the emboldening of far-right extremism. The prospect of a second Trump term, potentially unconstrained by reelection concerns, sends shivers down the spines of many Americans, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.

Given these high stakes, the impulse to rally behind any Democratic nominee might seem natural. However, such unconditional support could prove counterproductive and potentially damaging to the long-term promotion of a genuine progressive agenda. To understand this perspective, it's essential to examine the delicate balance of power within the Democratic Party and the role that progressive pressure has played in recent years.

The Real Progressive Reason for Biden’s Achievements

The Biden administration's most celebrated achievements—from ambitious climate initiatives to student debt relief to massive infrastructure investment—owe much to the persistent pressure exerted by progressive forces both inside and outside the government. The creation of a strong progressive voting bloc, coupled with grassroots movements and the strategic positioning of left-wing officials in key roles, has been instrumental in pushing the Democratic agenda leftward. These victories were not gifts bestowed by a benevolent party establishment but hard-won concessions extracted through sustained activism and political maneuvering.

The obvious fear among progressives is that without this constant pressure, the Democratic Party will inevitably gravitate back toward its corporate-friendly, centrist tendencies. Historically, the Democratic Party has maintained close ties with corporate interests and the military-industrial complex. While the party has made strides in recent years to address issues like income inequality and universal healthcare, these efforts often fall far short of the transformative changes needed to address systemic problems.

The influence of wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists remains a significant concern for progressives. As Sen. Sanders has long pointed out, the replacement of Biden as the nominee could potentially open the floodgates for even greater donor influence over the party's agenda. This fear is not unfounded, as evidenced by growing pressures from certain donors to replace Lina Khan, the current head of the Federal Trade Commission, who has been a leading figure in challenging big tech monopolies.

Harris's Shifting Stances: Embracing the Centre Wherever She Can

Vice President Harris' political evolution provides a case study in the tensions between progressive ideals and mainstream Democratic politics. As a presidential candidate in 2020, Harris embraced several progressive positions, including banning fracking and significant police reform. However, as she transitions into her role as the presumptive nominee, there are signs of a shift toward more centrist stances. Harris has begun to distance herself from some of her previous progressive positions in order to “bolster a more moderate image.” This rightward drift is seen by many as an attempt to court moderate voters and assuage the concerns of corporate donors.

Interestingly, the only area where Harris seems to be maintaining a somewhat progressive stance is on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Here, she has called for a more balanced approach, aligning with growing pressure from Democratic voters who support Palestinian rights and are demanding a cease-fire. This shift in the party's stance on Israel-Palestine provides a telling example of how progressive pressure can influence party positions. Harris's more nuanced approach, where while reconfirming US support for Israel she has also openly critiqued the number of civilian casualties, stands in contrast to the traditionally staunch pro-Israel stance of the Democratic establishment.

The fact that Harris has not fully abandoned this more balanced position on Israel-Palestine, even as she moves to the center on other issues, demonstrates the power of sustained progressive advocacy. It also underscores the importance of maintaining pressure on key issues rather than offering blanket support. The growing chorus of Democratic voters, particularly young people and progressives, demanding a ceasefire and a reevaluation of U.S. support for Israeli military actions has clearly had an impact on the party's rhetoric and policy positions.

Playing the Long Game: Progressive Strategy in the 2024 Election and Beyond

The reluctance of some progressives to offer immediate, unconditional endorsement to Harris is not merely about ideological purity. It's a calculated strategy aimed at shaping the Democratic platform and ensuring that progressive priorities remain at the forefront of the party's agenda. By making their support conditional on commitments to key progressive policies, leftist leaders hope to prevent a wholesale abandonment of the transformative vision that has energized millions of voters, particularly young people.

This approach serves several strategic purposes. By withholding immediate endorsement, progressives retain bargaining power to influence the party platform and Harris's campaign promises. A vigorous debate within the party can actually serve to engage and motivate progressive voters, rather than suppressing turnout through a perception that their concerns are being ignored. Conditional support encourages specific, measurable policy commitments rather than vague platitudes. Moreover, by clearly articulating their expectations now, progressives lay the groundwork for holding a potential Harris administration accountable after the election.

While the threat posed by a potential Trump presidency is real and significant, offering unconditional support to any Democratic nominee carries its own set of risks. Without pressure from the left, there's a danger that the Democratic platform could shift even further to the center, abandoning key progressive priorities. Young and progressive voters, who have been crucial to recent Democratic victories, may become disillusioned if they perceive that their concerns are being sidelined. The transition period presents a unique opportunity to push for party reforms and policy commitments, and immediate, unconditional endorsement would squander this chance. Once full endorsement is given, progressives lose much of their leverage to influence the direction of the campaign and potential administration.

The progressive strategy of conditional support extends beyond mere party politics. It speaks to a broader vision of how democracy should function. By resisting calls for unconditional loyalty to party nominees, progressives are advocating for a more dynamic, responsive political system where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, even within party lines. This approach challenges the notion that party unity must come at the expense of ideological diversity and policy innovation. Instead, it posits that a healthy democracy requires constant negotiation and renegotiation of the social contract, with citizens and their representatives actively shaping the direction of governance.

As the 2024 election approaches, progressives find themselves walking a tightrope. On one side looms the very real threat of a Trump return to power, with all the democratic backsliding that would entail. On the other side is the risk of seeing hard-won progressive gains eroded by a Democratic Party that, absent continued pressure, may revert to its more corporate-friendly instincts. Withholding immediate, unconditional endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a rejection of the democratic process or an invitation for Trump to win. Rather, it's a sophisticated political strategy aimed at ensuring that the Democratic Party remains responsive to the needs and aspirations of its progressive base. In the end, the progressive movement's strength lies in its ability to both challenge and support the Democratic Party, pushing it toward a more equitable, sustainable, and just vision for America. By maintaining this tension, progressives hope to not just win an election, but to fundamentally transform the political landscape for generations to come.

Ultimately, while the strategy of conditional support for Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris serves immediate tactical purposes, it's crucial to recognize that true transformative change ultimately requires building an independent, mass progressive movement. This movement can strategically align with pro-corporate parties like the Democrats when necessary in the short term, but its long-term goal must be to fundamentally reshape the political landscape. By organizing outside traditional party structures, building grassroots power, and cultivating a clear vision for a more egalitarian, sustainable, and free world, progressives can work toward creating a political force that doesn't just influence existing parties, but eventually replaces them with something far better.

Israeli soldiers, like soldiers in other countries, bask in the self-serving effusive praise showered upon them by politicians, but privately they know BS when they hear it.

Right from the start on October 7th, the soldiers knew that the sudden collapse of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s state-of-the-art multitiered border defense system left the door open for the Hamas attack. Still denied an official investigation by Netanyahu, people know that had the border defense been in place, all the terrible consequences never would have occurred. (See, the open letter by six very prominent Israelis in The New York Times on June 26, 2024: “We Are Israelis Calling On Congress to Disinvite Netanyahu.”)

The soldiers also know that the small Hamas militia of some 25,000 fighters hidden in tunnels, having only small arms with dwindling ammunition, is up against the 465,000-person military armed with 1,500 F-16 fighter pilots and nuclear weapons. The Israeli military is also equipped daily by U.S. President Joe Biden with the most modern weapons. All this makes Netanyahu’s absurd description of Hamas as an existential threat sheer propaganda designed to protect his job.

The evidence is on the bloody body-strewn ground of tiny Gaza and its crowded 2.3 million people. The Israeli military has dropped over 100,000 precision bombs, countless artillery shells from hundreds of tanks, and even naval missiles to kill over 300,000 innocent Gazan civilians, mostly children, women, and elderly, who had nothing to do with October 7th. (See also my March 5, 2024 column “Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza”). Most of the remaining people in Gaza are sick, injured, or both. (See the open letter to Biden and the U.S. Congress titled, “45 American Health Workers’ Letter on Their Experiences in Gaza” dated July 25, 2024.)

The vicious omnicidal extremists who make up Netanyahu’s ruling coalition will be exposed for their war crimes and destruction of their own country’s freedoms.

How many Israeli soldiers have died? The official figure is 395 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers—many from friendly fire in the fog of explosions, accidents such as collapsing buildings, and diseases. The exaggerated “Hamas battalions” send fighters popping up from their underground tunnels to fire rifles or grenade launchers before most are immediately extinguished by overwhelming firepower.

The largest number of Israeli casualties are the soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including moral traumas, being treated in the thousands by Israeli psychologists and mental health specialists. These are the soldiers who will tell the stories of who they were ordered to kill and what they were ordered to destroy. The lack of a truthful account of the atrocities in Gaza—because of Netanyahu blocking war correspondents from Israel and other nations from freely reporting there—will be brought to light by the reports of these soldiers.

To be sure, the thirst for vengeance after October 7th animated most of the soldiers at the outset—especially those screened for having no qualms about killing innocent children, women, and men and destroying civilian facilities.

But as the weeks became months, the Torah’s instruction of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” to limit escalating cycles of revenge, according to Biblical scholars, became a hundred and then a thousand eyes for an eye and a thousand teeth for a tooth. More soldiers and generals are questioning why they are still there amidst the smoldering ruins and ghastly slaughters.

Netanyahu’s drive to remain in power has stoked the carnage in Gaza. Despised by 3 out of 4 Israelis for earlier moving to weaken the judiciary, under indictment for political corruption by Israeli prosecutors, and soundly condemned for his defense failure on October 7th, ending this one-sided annihilation of defenseless people would mean the end of his political career.

Consider what these soldiers have witnessed or done: Powerful precision bombs blowing to bits babies, children, pregnant women, refugee camps, apartments, schools, health clinics, hospitals, ambulances, water mains, and electricity networks; families starving on genocidal orders from the Israeli military “no food, water, medicine, electricity, fuel”; and homeless people trapped, unable to escape, surrender, or shelter.

The soldiers have seen their bulldozers flatten critical civilian infrastructure, even cemeteries and agricultural crops. F-16s have blown up universities, government buildings, and many schools, mosques, and historic churches. Snipers, among the most brutal of the army, kill patients in broken hospitals and survivors desperately try to pull their crushed families out from under the rubble.

Already, several reservists have told reporters in Israel that the military has no operating “rules of engagement.” They could blow up or shoot and kill anyone who moves, including United Nations relief workers, journalists, and health workers protected by international law. The laws of war—the duty to disobey illegal orders—don’t exist in Gaza.

Soldiers saw the body parts of little children, heard the screams, the cries, and groans of the dying, smelled the stench of rotting corpses being eaten by stray dogs, and saw their victims—mothers and fathers—begging in vain for help to save their dismembered children.

Unlike other wars, Israeli soldiers were not allowed to facilitate the emergency rescue crews that still exist in Gaza such as those with Doctors Without Borders, the Palestinian Red Crescent, and several internationally respected providers of food and water—themselves subject to Israeli attacks. (See December 13, 2023, an open letter titled, “Stop the Humanitarian Catastrophe” to Biden by 16 Israeli human rights groups which appeared in The New York Times).

Soldiers obeyed their commanders’ orders to repeatedly push hundreds of thousands of desperate Gazans on foot, exposed to the stifling heat and lethally polluted air, from one Israeli-designated area to another. The treachery is unlimited.

Other soldiers were told to block thousands of trucks ready to enter from Egypt, packed with humanitarian aid of food, water, medicine, and other critical supplies. Still, other soldiers were ordered to kidnap thousands of Gazans, including women and children, and send them without charges to be tortured in Israeli jails, as documented in a just-released U.N. Human Rights Office report titled, Detention in the Context of the Escalation of Hostilities in Gaza.

Of course, there are plenty of soldiers happy to have such sadistic and unlawful commands. How dare the Gazans revolt against the decades of violent Israeli bombing, occupation, invasions, and military embargoes? That’s historically been the imperious attitude of cruel, colonizing, land-seizing regimes. The ranks will grow to join past “refuseniks” who in 2002 courageously declared their refusal to go and beat up people, demolish homes, and otherwise rampage against defenseless Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

From The Combatants’ Letter, January 2002:

We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the state of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty in the occupied territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people.

[…]

We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this war of the settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve, and humiliate an entire people.

Dozens of Israeli human rights organizations and leading advocates will record these reservists’ recollections, their remorse, and their recurring nightmares. The vicious omnicidal extremists who make up Netanyahu’s ruling coalition will be exposed for their war crimes and destruction of their own country’s freedoms. Returning war veterans have credibility that will fortify the forthcoming entry into Gaza of international commissions of inquiry and scores of investigative journalists. (See the new documentary The Night Won’t End.)

The violent Netanyahu knows all this, which is why he is now scheming to provoke a wider regional war by dragging spineless Biden and the U.S. military directly into the fighting. Remember Biden’s intense backing of the Bush/Cheney criminal invasion/war in Iraq.

If you don’t care what Netanyahu is doing over there, you’d better care about what he’s doing to America, our Congress, our tax dollars, our freedom of speech, and our national security.