The freedom to vote had a big moment last week. It was not about how citizens should vote in 2024, but what might happen in 2025. It was a rousing affirmation that could lead to sweeping reform — and may signal a momentous fight ahead.

The Freedom to Vote Act would guarantee early voting and vote by mail, establish automatic registration, ban gerrymandering, bring disclosure to dark money in elections, and strengthen public campaign financing and safeguards against election subversion. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act after it was gutted by the Supreme Court.

This package would be the most significant democracy reform in two generations. It would strike a blow for racial justice. It would strengthen our system of self-government to better represent the people of a changing, growing country. H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 came within two votes of enactment in 2022. Now it is clear that bold democracy reform is at the center of the public agenda going forward.

As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.

Last Wednesday in Chicago, the Brennan Center and Democracy SENTRY held a conversation on voting rights in 2025. Hundreds filled two rooms. We heard from Rep. Joe Morelle, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois. We heard from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, one of the country’s foremost election officials. And we heard from top civil rights leaders Maya Wiley of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Damon Hewitt of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Marc Morial of the National Urban League.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer keynoted. He made clear that the bills are a priority and that he hoped to pass them by February 2025, even if doing so requires changing the rules to allow their passage with a simple-majority vote. “This is vital to democracy,” he told reporters. “This is not just another extraneous issue. This is the wellspring of it all.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, closed the event. She movingly described stepping over broken glass in the Capitol on the evening of January 6, 2021, to ensure that the electoral votes were counted. She explained that the fight over the bills, including frustration with outdated Senate rules, galvanized senators to prepare to act when they have the chance.

The Washington Post saw the significance of lawmakers’ focus on these bills, with a lead story on its website.

And the next night, Vice President Harris promised to sign the two bills.

As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.

Voters and democracy face rising attacks as Election Day approaches. We’ve seen moves to make it easier to block the verdict of voters in Georgia and other states. Defying half a century of precedent, a federal court ruled that voters can’t sue under the Voting Rights Act. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secret donors have flooded elections. As a recent Brennan Center study noted, the racial turnout gap between white and nonwhite voters in states once covered by the Voting Rights Act has grown twice as fast as in the rest of the country. This package would stop this wave of voter suppression in its tracks.

It’s also important politically.

The health of American democracy has ranked among the top issues this year in polls. We must protect against authoritarianism and a repeat of January 6. But what matters most is not what we’re against, but what we’re for: a democracy in which every eligible citizen can vote, have their vote counted, and trust the results.

Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.

Another important audience should take note of the cheers for reform: political insiders who sometimes discount public enthusiasm for democracy reform. As I told the attendees at the Brennan Center’s event, “This is not a messaging bill. It’s for real.” Remember: voting rights failed in 1957, 1960, and 1964 before being enacted in 1965.

How will this play out? We hope leaders from all parties will work to protect the freedom to vote. The last time the Voting Rights Act was considered, in 2006, it passed the Senate unanimously. In 2022, on the other hand, only one Republican senator was even willing to consider supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Sen. Ted Cruz, recognizing the broad popularity of these measures, last time called for an “under-the-dome strategy,” a euphemism for a no-holds-barred filibuster. Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.

At the Brennan Center, we’re proud that so many of the policies in these bills draw on our research and work over two decades. Here’s our commitment: if there is a chance to enact this legislation in 2025, we will do everything we can to make it happen.

As I said in Chicago, over recent years we’ve all been unnerved by the rise of the election deniers. But now there is a democracy movement — deep, diverse, and strong. If we all do our part and do it right, we can make that democracy movement the story of the coming years.

In November 2020, Common Dreams published my op-ed “Three Questions That Didn’t Get Asked During the Presidential Debates (and Probably Never Will).” The article offered several probing policy questions that (I surmised) would never make it through the corporate media’s screening process. Sure enough, none of those issues were addressed in the widely televised debates in advance of the 2020 election.

But here we are again. As we approach the November election, I find myself once again reflecting on some of the urgent policy issues that always seem to get buried in the corporate media’s constant supply of irrelevant distractions. This includes but is not limited to endless and often relatively inconsequential and inconclusive polls, the character assassinations of the day, gratuitous speculation from talking heads supplying what one of my old college professors used to call “graceful monuments to the obvious,” and whole buckets of information overload that lack perspective and thoughtful analysis. The now nearly universal proclivity of large news organizations to emphasize horse-race politics combined with infotainment and political theatrics has produced conventions and debates that sometimes seem to have more in common with rock concerts or sporting events than venues offering the kind of thoughtful analysis of issues that are supposed to be the core of democracy.

In what is undoubtedly one of the oddest and most convoluted elections in U.S. history, we seem to be in the position of choosing not only two presidential candidates but two alternate realities.

Back in the day, all this character assassination used to be called muckraking journalism and it was primarily bottom-feeder publications that engaged in it. Now, we have supposedly well-regarded mainstream media outlets digging up as much dirt and negative trivia as they can find on candidates who are now expected to pass impossible purity tests. While, on the one hand, our reigning cultural amnesia almost guarantees that the lessons of the past will get memory holed, paradoxically, the unforgiving permanence of the digital realm and the internet also guarantees that no act or mistake on the part of any public figure is either forgotten or forgiven. It seems to go without saying that all of this turmoil generates far more heat than light. Given this sorry state of affairs and offered as a simple thought experiment, here are some questions that the corporate media should be asking candidates, not only in the presidential debates but also as a matter of course given the dizzying events of this most unusual presidential campaign.

Question 1: The Role of AI in the Economy and the Job Market

Although there’s a widespread public perception that AI was only developed by Big Tech, for many years the federal government has sponsored a huge AI development program working closely with and even funding the private sector. In 2024, Big Tech unleashed powerful but still poorly understood AI capabilities into the economy before their implications and impact on labor markets could be fully assessed. The federal government lagged even further behind industry in trying to come up with sound regulatory policies so that AI would not severely disrupt an already tenuous and unstable economic picture. It now seems abundantly clear that AI is indeed displacing all sorts of jobs ranging from customer service to professional positions in marketing, accounting, entertainment, and many other fields of endeavor.

Rather than facing and managing a problem that government itself helped create, Congress and the executive branch seem content to allow unelected technocrats such as Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, to formulate policy proposals and other much needed guardrails. In addition, it’s troubling that rogue AI is already acting as a chaos agent, can undermine the foundations of democracy by empowering hackers, and is further aggravating the crisis of information quality and validity that haunts our political landscape. In the larger picture, both robots and AI—with the apparent blessing of both corporations and government—are beginning to intrusively inject themselves into society, culture, and politics. Given all of these trends, what is your position on how AI and robotics will impact the economy and the quality of life in the U.S.?

Question 2: Privatizing the Healthcare System

The mass closings of Steward hospitals nationwide has dramatically highlighted state and federal governments’ failure in allowing for-profit and private equity companies to take over many aspects of the healthcare system. This company, which operated 31 hospitals in eight states, has now filed for bankruptcy and has been selling its hospitals to pay off creditors after years of mismanagement and profiteering by its executive team. Private equity firms have been making acquisitions in healthcare for years including ambulances, hospitals, and, more recently, primary care practices.

The corporate greed of these companies is appalling. They see the decline in healthcare offering opportunities for monetary gain even as they themselves contribute to that decline and government regulators do little to ameliorate the situation. Many citizens, through no fault of their own, are mired in medical debt. Reportedly, the largest use of gofundme in the U.S. is now for paying medical bills. In addition, the way that the Covid-19 crisis was handled—a topic now seemingly memory holed during the campaign—has also been a major factor in the downward spiral of healthcare quality. Given these realities, what is your plan for restoring reliable and affordable healthcare in the U.S. and getting for-profit companies out of the healthcare system?

Question 3: Out-of-Control Corporate Influence in U.S. Politics

The longstanding ripple effects from the Citizens United Supreme Court decision have dramatically altered the political landscape. Not only has it opened the door to outsized influence from dark money and billionaire donors but it has also allowed corporations to wield wildly disproportionate influence on government policies and legislation. This is a problem that threatens the very core of our democratic processes. Over the last few decades, corporate power has increased many times over and the takeover of U.S. politics has opened the door to corrupt practices and allowed corporations to place their interests over and above the collective interests and well-being of the public. Public opinion polls show this is one major reason why Americans now have such little faith in all three branches of government.

Because the most powerful and influential companies tend to be in the Big Tech sector, equally concerning is how technological control is being used to advance and consolidate this new “behind the scenes” power structure. We might view it as technologically-enhanced “back door” politics. The overall privatization of the public commons and the sweetheart deals that take place behind the scenes are now deceptively coded as “public-private partnerships.”

Many current and challenging societal problems can be traced to this corporate takeover. Further, a huge part of this scenario is the information control wielded by Big Tech and Big Media which have become our primary sources of political news and information. Given this situation, what is your position on the disproportionate control that corporations now exercise over our political system? What will your administration do to eliminate pay-for-play politics, and restore the kind of democratic governance that Americans deeply long for and deserve?

In what is undoubtedly one of the oddest and most convoluted elections in U.S. history, we seem to be in the position of choosing not only two presidential candidates but two alternate realities. It’s all the more important therefore that responsible and responsive probing of the top-of-mind existential issues faced by the American public be thoughtfully and proactively addressed by the media. Many Americans are already asking these hard questions in their minds and hearts. If this process can be broadened to embrace the public commons of debate and vigorous discourse, then perhaps we’ll see a glimmer of hope for real transformative change at this unprecedented crossroads in our nation’s history.

In January 2024, the Biden-Harris administration advanced a huge win for the climate movement. After pressure from scientists and advocates including Food & Water Watch, Biden paused permits for liquefied natural gas export terminals. He also started a process to reevaluate how the United States determines whether exporting fracked gas is in the public interest. However, some lawmakers are rushing to the LNG industry’s aid and attacking science to do so.

This August, the Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, with various subcommittee members, penned a letter to the Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm. In it, they attack critical research from Food & Water Watch board member Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell, who authored a groundbreaking study documenting that LNG’s climate impact is worse for the climate than coal.

These choices for modeling assumptions will determine if the federal government joins fossil fuel industry greenwashing or takes real climate action to restrict further development of fossil fuels for exports and hydrogen production.

The issue at hand is the assumptions underlying how the U.S. government models climate impact. This wonky and obscure math will have a huge influence on policies at this critical juncture in the climate crisis. If dirty energy companies have their way, DOE climate models will churn out bogus results showing that LNG is a benefit for the climate.

All this comes at a time when the climate science is clear and well-established: Time is of the essence. We must cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly to avert a catastrophic future. The federal government must use modeling that reflects this scientific reality, not fossil fuel industry deception.

Dirty Industries Are Pushing for Models That Benefit Them

Right now, the DOE is developing models to predict LNG’s climate impact in order to judge whether it’s in the “public interest” to allow more LNG exports. Science and common sense tell us we can’t expand fossil fuels and address the climate crisis. Nevertheless, fossil fuel industry has long argued, falsely, that gas is a clean fuel and an essential “bridge” in our transition to renewables. This fight over LNG exports is no different.

At the same time, the Treasury Department is developing models to determine the climate impacts of various types of hydrogen production. This will ultimately determine what—if any—tax credits hydrogen producers receive. Dirty energy companies are advocating for modeling assumptions that would allow hydrogen made with fracked gas, coal mine methane (gas extracted from coal beds), carbon capture, and even factory farm gas to qualify for lucrative subsidies that were meant for hydrogen produced exclusively with renewables.

These choices for modeling assumptions will determine if the federal government joins fossil fuel industry greenwashing or takes real climate action to restrict further development of fossil fuels for exports and hydrogen production. The major crux of the industry’s plan is to skew how we measure methane’s climate impact and analyze alternatives to methane. The federal government siding with industry would have disastrous impacts on our climate while showing climate benefits on paper.

Methane Is an Immediate Threat and Should Be Treated Like One

Methane, the main ingredient in so-called “natural” gas, is a potent climate pollutant that has 86 times the impact of carbon dioxide over 20 years. Its emissions are an immediate threat to our climate. They risk pushing us past thresholds that our climate can’t recover from. But a report from the Breakthrough Institute—cited by lawmakers in their letter to Secretary Granholm—ignores this reality.

Breakthrough’s criticism of Dr. Howarth’s LNG study emphasizes the time frame used to measure methane’s impact. While Dr. Howarth uses a 20-year timeframe, Breakthrough advocates for 100 years.

Incorporating a long view of methane into climate models shows a smaller impact since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter amount of time. (Its impact over a 100-year time frame is less than half of that over 20 years.) However, this treats methane and climate change as distant problems for a future generation—not incredibly urgent ones that must be addressed now.

Human-generated methane emissions cause over 500,000 deaths around the world every year.

Dirty industries support a long view because it gives the impression that methane is not as harmful. This would allow them to justify continuing to destroy our climate.

What’s also at play is how the U.S. government considers methane leakages. The industry is notoriously leaky throughout the supply chain, and the U.S. government routinely underestimates this leakage. Direct observations show these leaks are around three times as high as estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The industry is also responsible for many super-emitters that bleed methane into the atmosphere at astonishing rates. Many of these have only recently been uncovered through new satellite imagery techniques. Federal climate models must incorporate this leakage at rates that truly account for their impact on the planet.

But dirty industries have tilted the debate by funding and consulting on research purporting to investigate methane leakage. For example, Breakthrough cites a paper on LNG’s climate footprint with an author who has extensive links to the fossil fuel industry and previously produced research funded by Cheniere (an LNG exporter).

Breakthrough also proposes that the answer to the leakage problem is just to plug the leaks—never mind that the industry has been promising to do so for years with little progress. And when it comes to climate benefits, merely plugging leaks pales in comparison to transitioning to renewables. Which brings us to the second issue:

Methane Fails to Compare to the Best Alternative—Renewables

Gas-based hydrogen and LNG companies are vying for favorable climate models based on the idea that they are better than alternatives. But they don’t dare compare themselves to the clear winner: renewables. While LNG and hydrogen argue they create less emissions or offset emissions, renewables create zero emissions when generating energy.

We don’t need an abundance of experimental technology or dirty infrastructure to transition to renewables, either. We know how to make them, and we know they are the best option for our climate.

Nevertheless, LNG and hydrogen companies are pushing for federal support based on bogus comparisons. For example, organizations like Breakthrough are still going to the mat for gas because they say “It’s better than coal!” (Reminder: This framing was and is still used by the oil and gas industry. The result has been continued gas production, which has caused more emissions and stalled our renewable energy transition.) The same rationale could be used to justify replacing old coal plants with new coal plants.

The true test for whether an industry is “climate-friendly” or “in the public interest” should be its strength compared to all the options, not just the ones Big Oil and Gas wants us to consider.

Moreover, any comparison must consider the lifetimes of new infrastructure, and new fracked gas infrastructure will last for decades. It could lock in at most minor emissions reductions well into the 2060s and further slow down our energy transition.

At the same time, some companies argue that by creating hydrogen by blending fracked gas with factory farm gas and methane leaked from the coal and gas industries, they are mitigating fracking’s harms to our climate. They say this makes their hydrogen a greener alternative to plain old gas, and so should qualify for “clean” hydrogen tax credits

But models should not be based on comparing energy sources to the worst and dirtiest option. That fails to account for the benefits of better alternatives like renewables. The true test for whether an industry is “climate-friendly” or “in the public interest” should be its strength compared to all the options, not just the ones Big Oil and Gas wants us to consider.

Additionally, these modeling assumptions falsely assume methane leakage is a foregone conclusion. They ignore that there are better ways of plugging leaks than letting polluters pretend they somehow offset fossil-based hydrogen’s harms to our climate.

In reality, subsidizing these gasses through faulty climate assumptions will increase the profitability of (and thus incentivize) fracking, coal mining, and factory farming. This will create new sources of methane that will invariably leak into the atmosphere.

LNG and Hydrogen Pose Harms Beyond Climate

Beyond climate, there are many reasons why supporting LNG and fossil fuel-based hydrogen are terrible ideas. The U.S. should consider all of these in its policy decisions. For one, methane emissions are hazardous to the climate and our health. Methane is a key ingredient in ground-level ozone, which poses potentially fatal risks to our lungs and hearts. Human-generated methane emissions cause over 500,000 deaths around the world every year.

LNG in particular would spur a dirty infrastructure boom in communities already suffering at the hands of the oil and gas industry. In the Gulf Coast, for example, majority-Black communities are facing sinking land due to climate change and devastating pollution. A buildout of more LNG terminals would compound these harms with more pollution and the risk of catastrophic explosions.

Dirty industries, their allies in Congress, and their mouthpieces are rejecting science to sell the lie of “clean” gas and hydrogen.

A growing LNG industry would also require more fracking and all its attendant harms to nearby communities. Those include mysterious illnesses, increased cancer rates, and poisoned water. The entire natural gas life cycle poses serious risks to the U.S.’s water resources. Extraction, pipelines, and related carbon capture and storage can impact water scarcity by growing demand for water in other sectors and in areas where supply is projected to decline.

Gas-based hydrogen would similarly prop up the fracking industry, and projects that use gas made from factory farm waste would prop up the harmful factory farm model. Hydrogen is also an incredibly thirsty power source, and many of the projects planned in the U.S. are proposed for areas that can’t afford to waste a drop. (Compared to hydrogen, renewables—especially wind—are also the clear winner when it comes to minimizing water use.)

We Need Accurate, Science-Based Modeling for Good Climate Policy

It is a scientific fact that climate change’s dangers become more urgent every day; that averting climate catastrophe requires ending fossil fuels; that renewables present the most effective strategy for reducing emissions. But dirty industries, their allies in Congress, and their mouthpieces are rejecting science to sell the lie of “clean” gas and hydrogen. They are pushing for the U.S. government to use models that lead to the best outcomes for them—not the planet.

By attacking this science and going after scientists like Dr. Howarth, the industry is doing what it’s always done. It’s casting doubt on established science to further its own ends; muddying the waters to sow confusion on what we already know. In order to pass policy that will actually prevent climate catastrophe, we need leaders who will see through their smoke and mirrors.

This column, about the decline and fall of America’s political news media in such a pivotal election year, has proved very hard to write — not for a lack of material, but because I can’t keep pace with every day’s new and stunning examples of bad journalism, each one spiraling a tad lower.

I’ll start with the weekend’s lowlight: a news story that worked up the media food chain from the muck of smaller right-wing outlets, then got boosted on X/Twitter by Alex Thompson, a widely read national political correspondent for Axios, before the New York Post hyped it in your local Wawa and eventually the New York Times felt compelled to address it. You see, an idea that has animated the right for the last couple of weeks is the fantasy that Democratic vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz is a phony. Sunday’s purported news slammed Walz for a 2006 episode when his then-congressional campaign claimed he’d won a youth award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce when really it was — get this! — the Nebraska Junior Chamber of Commerce!

Never mind that the 2006 Walz campaign had corrected this tiny mistake (picture Barack Obama doing the hand thing, but even smaller), probably the work of a junior staffer, the second they learned about it. The nattering nabobs of negativism had accomplished their mission in a year when the elite mainstream media has lost its doggone mind — going after small daily clickbait like a puppy chasing its tail, demanding news conferences only to ask trivial questions, issuing ludicrous “fact checks,” and desperately seeking gravitas in the candidate just found guilty on 34 felony counts and liable for rape and financial fraud, who was dinged by NPR for 162 lies or distortions in just one news conference.

Indeed, the outrageous overinflation of the Walz story was nearly forgotten by Monday morning when the Times, which has bent over backwards to belittle the joy of Kamala Harris’ wildly successful Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week, published an op-ed from the editor of the conservative National Review, Rich Lowry, headlined simply: “Trump Can Win on Character.” Perhaps that’s true, as critics noted, if voters do what Lowry did in his piece and pretend that inconvenient facts like the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection or the fraud verdict had never happened. But while the column was ridiculed on social media, few people said they were giving up on the Times — because in this annus horribilis for the American media, many had already tuned out the NYT weeks or months ago.

Mainstream journalists can carp and whine about this all they want, but when less than a third of Americans trust the mass media, few folks are listening to them.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The NYU professor and media critic Jay Rosen urged journalists to cover “the stakes, not the odds” of the 2024 election while Margaret Sullivan — who writes for the Guardian and her Substack after stints at the Times and the Washington Post — was more blunt in beseeching the press to ignore the pull of both-sides journalism and take seriously the threat to democracy posed by Trump, who tried to override his 2020 election loss and has made no comforting assurances that he won’t try to do the same after Nov. 5, 2024.

Few journalists — if any — have listened. Much of the righteous fury during the Chicago DNC was directed at fact-checkers from the Times, Post, and independent organizations like PolitiFact. These organizations or practices were mostly established after the endemic political lying of the 2000s — remember the Iraq War? But while no one would argue with their stated approach of tough, unbiased scrutiny of all sides, the fact-checking industrial complex can’t handle the truth when one party’s platform is based on a firehouse of lies and the other party is trying to be serious, if not always literal, about reality.

So Democratic convention week brought absurdities like PolitiFact tackling a DNC video that showed an actual Trump 2016 quote that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions and labeled it “mostly false” (!!) because his panicked aides later told him to walk back such a politically damaging statement. Also typical was USA Today calling it “false” when the DNC talks about “Trump’s Project 2025″ because the blueprint for his presidency was produced by the Heritage Foundation, even though most of its authors are former and would-be future Trump staffers and it offers the only program for filling jobs in a Trump administration.

C’mon, man.

It would require another column — maybe a book — to explain why this is happening. I see it as less the public’s main complaint (corporate control of the media) and more about our profession’s weird value structure, where it’s more important to be savvy, cynical, and not be portrayed as naive shills for liberalism than to care about saving democracy from authoritarian rule, on top of maybe a new and not always healthy brand of careerism from younger journalists.

The Chicago-based media critic Mark Jacob, a retired veteran editor of that city’s Tribune and Sun Times, nailed it Monday with a piece headlined “Mainstream media on a path to irrelevance.” Jacob has harsh words for how reporters have covered the race, writing that “too many political journalists are marinating in the Washington cocktail culture, writing for each other and for their sources — in service to the political industry, not the public.” But he also notes that traditional media can’t figure out how to compete for young eyeballs against sites like edgy and fast-paced TikTok. Jacob pointed out that public faith in mass media has plunged from 72% in 1976, after Watergate, to just 32% today.

You know who gets the new landscape better than anyone else? Kamala Harris.

The vice president and Democratic nominee is running to be America’s first post-media president. In Chicago, much was made of the fact that Team Harris and the Democrats invited 200 sometimes fawning internet “content creators” who got VIP treatment while mainstream journalists fought over nosebleed-level seats and refrained from eating or going to the bathroom for fear of losing them.

Harris feels she doesn’t need journalists at all, and a lot of the public is cheering her on.

But more broadly, Harris and her campaign is 100% focused on message discipline to build her brand and sell it to the American people in a few short weeks. The surest way to get thrown off that message discipline would be a stray answer at an open news conference or in an interview with the likes of NBC’s Lester Holt — so for now, Harris is simply not doing that.

And she’s getting away with it. Mainstream journalists can carp and whine about this all they want, but when less than a third of Americans trust the mass media, few folks are listening to them. What’s been really striking this year is that while traditionally deep distrust of the mainstream press has long been the province of right-wing Republicans, now it’s liberals who once cheered for the media to do better who seem to be giving up on them.

This is not great. For one thing, the plunge in faith leads to cancelled subscriptions that leads to laid-off reporters or shuttered printing plants — not the vision of America’s founders who believed a free press is essential. In this campaign, I think the healthy journalistic mindset is that we want to save democracy in November, but we also want Harris to show she can answer at least a few tough questions and explain her policies beyond hopelessly vague generalities.

The reality, though, is that Harris might surge into the White House in January doing very little of this — maybe none at all, especially if Trump actually chickens out of their Sept. 10 debate in Philadelphia. Fifty years ago this summer, Richard Nixon resigned the presidency because people believed what they read about him in the Washington Post. Today, Harris feels she doesn’t need journalists at all, and a lot of the public is cheering her on. And a vainglorious elite news media with severe tunnel vision has no one to blame but themselves.

The Republican attorney general of Texas sent armed police officers after Hispanic voters—some in their 80s—to intimidate, threaten, and destroy them financially by forcing them to hire lawyers to defend themselves, even though they are perfectly legal voters.

It’s a manifestation of the new unofficial Republican slogan:

If you can’t win on the issues, cheat. And if cheating doesn’t get you over the top, intimidate!

As is the case with so many bad Republican ideas (outlawing labor unions, ending welfare programs, banning abortion, gutting women’s voting and economic rights, etc.), this one started during the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870s. White supremacists had taken over the federal government and, in the states, Black voters were routinely threatened with violence and imprisonment when they tried to vote.

We thought those days were over. But in August of 2022, three months before he would face voters for reelection, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis reprised the neo-Confederate strategy of using the levers of official state power to intimidate Black voters.

DeSantis put together a special police force to go after “voter fraud,” and they executed a number of arrest warrants against Black voters who’d been told by various state officials that they could vote even though they had a felony conviction. They all believed they were eligible, and apparently most were. There was absolutely no effort to commit voter fraud involved, and there hasn’t been a single conviction.

The Texas attorney general bragged that Republicans only held power in Texas as a result of voter suppression, and added that if voter suppression were to end, Republicans would never again seize power in that state.

(With a 64% margin of victory, Florida’s voters had approved a ballot measure in the 2018 election giving voting rights back to the roughly 20% of Florida Black citizens—1.5 million potential voters—who’d had a felony conviction. The Republican-controlled state legislature then—quietly—essentially overturned the ballot measure in 2020, although many Black voters never got the memo.)

With cameras rolling, around 20 Black former-felon voters were arrested for “illegal voting” and paraded before the media in shackles.

As a result, many Black voters that November concluded showing up at the polls just wasn’t worth the risk. As the Palm Beach Daily News noted shortly after the 2022 election:

In 2018, before the new voting laws were enacted, the state had a 63% turnout among registered voters in the midterms. This year, turnout dropped to 54%...

DeSantis’ brutal intimidation strategy was so effective at suppressing the Black vote in Florida that year that he even won Miami-Dade County, which had been a Democratic stronghold since 2002, and Palm Beach County, which had not voted Republican since 1986.

But what starts in Florida rarely stays in Florida, particularly if it helps a white Republican administration stay in power in a state with a large minority population.

Now the “notoriously corrupt” Republican attorney general of Texas, desperate to hang onto his party’s majority in this 2024 election, has picked up on DeSantis’ strategy of intimidating minority voters in August to keep them away from the November polls.

After putting 2 million people on the “suspense” list—forcing those mostly urban voters into provisional ballots which won’t be countered unless they take time off work to show up at a county office to confirm their identities in the week after the election—Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is now sending police officers into Hispanic neighborhoods to kick in doors and arrest Latino voters.

In 2021, Paxton bragged to right-wing hate purveyor and now-imprisoned criminal Steve Bannon that he’d successfully prevented Harris County—home to Houston and its 2.4 million mostly-Democratic voters—from voting by mail in 2020, thus keeping Republicans in charge of the state.

That’s right. The Texas attorney general bragged that Republicans only held power in Texas as a result of voter suppression, and added that if voter suppression were to end, Republicans would never again seize power in that state.

His effort forced the few willing brave souls among Houston’s citizens—fully 14.5% of the entire state’s registered voters—to navigate crowded polling places in person during a deadly pandemic before vaccines were available.

“If we’d lost Harris County” by allowing people to vote by mail, Paxton crowed, “Harris County mail-in ballots that they wanted to send out were 2.5 million… and we were able to stop every one of them.

“Had we not done that, we… would've been one of those battleground states… and Donald Trump would’ve lost the election.”

After purging over a million Texas voters, most from big cities, off the voting rolls over the past few years, putting 2 million on the “suspense” list, and then preventing Houstonians from voting by mail in 2020, Paxton’s newest trick to keep the GOP in charge of Texas is a naked rip-off of DeSantis’ minority voter intimidation strategy.

One of the members of LULAC Texas (League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the oldest Latino voting and civil rights groups in the country), retired schoolteacher 87-year-old Lidia Martinez, had publicly spoken out against Paxton when he forbade Texans from getting mail-in ballots in 2020.

He got his revenge this past week.

At six in the morning, according to The New York Times, nine officers, some with guns, showed up at her home after having broken down a door to raid the home of Manuel Medina, the chair of the Tejano Democrats. Martinez asked who was at the door and, the Times noted, the officers “then pushed open the door” and invaded her home:

Ms. Martinez said that the officers told her they came because she had filled out a report saying that older residents were not getting mail ballots. “Yes, I did,”she told them. For 35 years, Ms. Martinez has been a member of LULAC, the civil rights group, helping Latino residents stay engaged in politics. Much of her work has included instructing older residents and veterans on how to fill out voter registration cards…

Two of the agents went to her bedroom and searched everywhere, “my underwear, my nightgown, everything, they went through everything,” Ms. Martinez recalled. They took her laptop, phone, planner and some documents.

All across the state, apparently, police were raiding the homes of Hispanic voters. The head of Texas LULAC Gabriel Rosales, who was on my radio/TV program Monday, told me and the Times, “It’s pure intimidation.”

When asked for an explanation, AG Paxton told the Times, without a trace of irony:

Secure elections are the cornerstone of our Republic.

Reporter Greg Palast, who’ll be premiering his new movie Vigilantes, Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen on Sunday, September 8 in Los Angeles (I’ll be there, too), has pointed out that the former Confederate slave states of Texas, Georgia, and Florida would all be Blue were it not for voter suppression, voter purges, and the intimidation of Black and Hispanic voters.

“There is no doubt about it,” Palast told me recently on the air. “It’s just demographics.”

As I detail in my book The Hidden History of the War on Voting, this has been a fundamental, core strategy for Republican efforts to hold power once they take over a state since the 1960s. Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich laid it out when he told a group of Texas Republicans in 1980, as they prepared to suppress votes during the Reagan campaign:

I don’t want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for another example, started his rise in Republican politics in the Goldwater/Johnson election of 1964 standing outside Hispanic and Native American polling places to challenge and intimidate would-be voters. His program was called Operation Eagle Eye, and over the next decade it expanded to multiple Republican-run states.

Voter suppression is now a primary political tool for Republicans, which is why when Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order last week expanding locations across the state where people can vote, the Arizona Republican Party sued to prevent them from opening to voters.

Republicans have come to genuinely believe that they cannot retain political power without resorting to morally criminal, nakedly unethical voter suppression tactics.

As former President Donald Trump told Fox “News” about unsuccessful Democratic efforts to offer mail-in ballots to registered voters nationwide during the 2020 pandemic:

They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again…

Because of a series of bizarre rulings by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court over the past two-plus decades, America is the only country in the world where a state must go to court to take away your gun but doesn’t even need to inform you if it prevents you from voting or keeps your vote from being counted.

Vice President Kamala Harris has promised to make voting rights a top priority if she’s elected president and Democrats take both houses of Congress. This is part of what Democrats mean when they say that democracy itself is on the ballot this fall.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Enhancement Act, for example, will outlaw most of these types of voter suppression by making voting a right, rather than simply a privilege.

The stakes for this election couldn’t be higher. Tag, you’re it!

August 28, 1963 marks one of the most significant events in our nation’s history. On that day, more than a quarter million people assembled to participate in the historic “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” where Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech and demanded the civil and economic rights of Black Americans that were promised in the founding documents of this nation. That call to action, shared by many gathered in the nation’s capital, is one that still reverberates today.

The origins of this march trace back over two decades to 1941, when labor organizer A. Philip Randolph, along with activist Bayard Rustin, created the March on Washington Movement, which was designed to place pressure on the federal government to establish employment protections for Black people. Randolph and Rustin were both motivated to end segregation and racial discrimination that denied Black Americans fair opportunities in employment. Randolph eventually became the director of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, while Rustin became one of the central organizers of the 1963 march. Through their efforts, Randolph, Rustin, and many others brought people from all over the nation to Washington, D.C., to use their collective power to foster lasting change. The impact of the March on Washington contributed to the eventual signing of the Civil Rights Act the following year.

While this may be well-known—and for some, distant—history, some of the same social ills that the marchers sought to eliminate are still with us with renewed intensity. And the progress and equality they have fought for is once again under attack, this time by conservative organizations who are using hard-fought civil rights laws and anti-discrimination legislation against the very people these laws were designed to protect.

On August 28, 2024, I share this pledge once again with our nation, with the hope that we as a society will continue to uphold this promise and stand against that which threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Our nation is once again fighting against a wave of race-based attacks against marginalized communities, this time under the guise of opposing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. So far this year, at least 37 federal lawsuits targeting DEI programming have been filed. The year before that, at least 65 bills were introduced to limit DEI in higher education across 25 states. This coordinated campaign aims to rid our nation of DEI offices and programs, end anti-bias trainings, and stop funding for the support for diversity. As studies have consistently shown, employers and educational institutions that emphasize and encourage diverse workforces and student bodies regularly outperform their counterparts among various measures.

Although many in this anti-DEI movement claim that racism no longer exists in our nation and thus nullifying the need for diversity, there is no denying the facts: Racial wealth divides persist, and people of color continue to endure systemic discrimination. Yet, some flatly reject the myriad data on the clear benefits of having diverse workforces and classrooms, and the pressure campaign launched by the conservative movement has caused many businesses to fold and abolish their DEI commitments and efforts completely.

And this movement is now becoming more blatant with its racist motivations, not only attacking universities and businesses, but also directly attacking people of color. We see it in the grotesque attacks on the first woman of color nominated for president, Vice President Kamala Harris, where right-wing activists have pejoratively labeled her as a “DEI hire.” This term has become a dog whistle for those who wish to diminish the accomplishments of Black women, wrongly suggesting that they are unqualified for their well-earned positions, and that but for their race and gender, they would not be where they are. Make no mistake: Right-wing organizations and activists are now using the term “DEI hire” as a slur to strip away the achievements of people of color who are in positions of power.

It is vital that we fight back against unfounded and dangerous attacks on DEI. Our nation cannot achieve the equality we hold as a moral imperative if we allow the progress we’ve made to be eroded. We can all look to the past as a road map to chart a better future where we fight for a nation–and world–free of discrimination and inequality. Following Dr. King’s speech, A. Philip Randolph invited those in attendance at the march to take a pledge:

Standing before the Lincoln Memorial on the 28th of August, in the centennial year of emancipation, I affirm my complete personal commitment to the struggle for jobs and freedom for Americans. To fulfill that commitment, I pledge that I will not relax until victory is won. I pledge that I will join and support all actions undertaken in good faith in accord with the time-honored Democratic tradition of nonviolent protest, of peaceful assembly, and petition, and of redress through the courts and the legislative process. I pledge to carry the message of the march to my friends and neighbors back home and arouse them to an equal commitment and equal effort. I will march and I will write letters. I will demonstrate and I will vote. I will work to make sure that my voice and those of my brothers ring clear and determine from every corner of our land. I pledge my heart and my mind and my body unequivocally and without regard to personal sacrifice, to the achievement of social peace through social justice.

As we commemorate the March on Washington, let us reflect on the past so that it emboldens us to fight for the future. And so, on August 28, 2024, I share this pledge once again with our nation, with the hope that we as a society will continue to uphold this promise and stand against that which threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is up to us to ensure that the progress made by those who marched is not undone by those who seek to divide us, and that the labor and freedoms of all Americans remain protected.

Surprisingly, it might not cause Israel much trouble.

The post What If Israel Nukes Iran? first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

It’s been nearly 80 years since the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico. Communities have been reeling ever since.

For generations, Americans who live “downwind” of nuclear testing and development sites have suffered deadly health complications. And this summer, funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) expired, putting their hard-earned compensation at risk.

Coming alongside sky-high spending on nuclear weapons development, this lapse is an outrage. Funding for these communities, which span much of the country, should be not only restored but expanded.

To protect future generations—and our own—the ultimate goal should be an end to all nuclear weapons development.

Alongside New Mexicans, people in Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and beyond have suffered health complications from nuclear testing in Nevada. And fallout from decades of tests ravaged the Marshall Islands, which were occupied by the U.S. after World War II.

Communities in Colorado were exposed to radiation from the Rocky Flats weapons plant. And people living near Missouri’s Coldwater Creek were exposed when World War II-era nuclear waste was buried there.

Over the generations since, tens of thousands of people have been affected. Health impacts include respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, birth defects, and elevated rates of cancer.

We’re from New Mexico, the only “cradle-to-grave” state in which all steps of the nuclear production process—mining, testing, and disposal—occur together. We’ve lived near impacted communities our entire lives.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of New Mexico’s Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, says five generations of her family have suffered health and economic impacts from nuclear testing. “We are forced to bury our loved ones on a regular basis,” she said.

Uranium mining in the Navajo Nation has also taken a terrible toll. Between 1944 and 1986, 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo land. Indigenous miners were exposed to radiation without proper safety protocols, resulting in aggressive cancers, miscarriages, lung diseases, and other illnesses.

After decades of struggle to get compensation, communities impacted by nuclear weapons development finally won passage of RECA in 1990—45 years after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

The initial law provided $2.6 billion to around 41,000 individuals, limiting coverage to onsite participants and downwinders within designated areas of the Nevada Test Site. The bill was amended in 2000 to include those who contracted cancer or other specific diseases from working as uranium miners between 1942 and 1971.

Since then, there have been bipartisan efforts to expand the bill’s narrow scope to other impacted communities. In response to years of advocacy, an extended and expanded version of RECA successfully passed the Senate this spring with 69-30 in favor—and President Joe Biden’s backing.

The bill would have expanded RECA eligibility to all downwinders in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Guam, along with previously excluded areas of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. And it would have included miners exposed to radiation until 1990.

But Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson blocked a vote in the House, abandoning the unseen victims of the U.S. nuclear arms race. Now RECA has expired altogether.

It’s not for lack of money. The U.S. is projected to spend over $750 billion on nuclear weapons over the next decade—a fact it feels impossible to reconcile with the abandonment of the people affected by that spending.

Meanwhile, people are still being exposed to radiation.

Even now, 523 abandoned uranium mines containing waste piles remain on Navajo territory—and companies continue to haul uranium through Navajo land, despite a nearly two-decade old ban on uranium mining there.

Mismanagement of nuclear waste is another ongoing concern. In 2019, 250 barrels of waste were lost en route to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.

To protect future generations—and our own—the ultimate goal should be an end to all nuclear weapons development. But as we work toward that goal, repairing the harm to impacted communities—by renewing and expanding RECA—is a necessary next step.

From the largest to the smallest and the oldest to the youngest creatures on Earth—Antarctic blue whales and coastal redwood trees, minute bacteria and human beings—we are all enmeshed in layers of relationships. We need each other, though some more than others.

Plants evolved hundreds of millions of years before the first humans and transformed the Earth—through their creativity in surviving predators—into a livable environment for all animals, including humans. We needed plants for our evolution and need them now for our survival from climate disaster. They, however, did not need us for their existence and would survive without us.

Putting humans at the top of the evolution chain as the crown of intelligent life, a Western worldview, is—as some keenly grasp—mistaken. The baleful consequences of this simplistic hierarchy are everywhere: out-of-control climate change; accelerating rates of animal and plant extinction; dead zones in the oceans and mass mortality of coral reefs; the vast pollution of land, air, and water; and the mounting likelihood of human extinction with nuclear war. All caused by humans, humans with financial and political power much more egregiously than others.

Perhaps you have you noticed that late summer asters and goldenrod tend to grow as companions. Why? Together—their combined beauty—attracts more pollinators.

Certain scientists who study plants—from the simplest to the exotic—are stirring controversy with their “ Are plants intelligent?” Consider that we humans owe our lives to plants for their food, medicines, and critical balance of 21% oxygen in the air we breathe. If our human intelligence has discerned over thousands of years which plants are edible and nutritious and healing, wouldn’t the evolutional ingenuity of plants which feed and sustain us and all life also constitute intelligence?

Studies have found that elephants recognize themselves in a mirror, crows create tools, dolphins demonstrate empathy and playfulness, and cats exhibit similar styles of attachment as human toddlers. The given explanation is that they have brains with neurological capacity for consciousness and intelligence.

But plants do not have a central brain. Could their mode of learning to evade insect predators and maximize their growth come from a diverse form of intelligence, possibly be distributed across their roots, stems, and leaves? Could the whole plant, then, function as a brain? Recent studies of plants have stirred the possibility that they are conscious and intelligent. Take communication, something we humans claim as our domain through language and more recently acknowledge that animals also possess.

Botanists have found that not only do alder and willow trees alter their leaf chemistry to defend themselves against an invasion of tent caterpillars, but that leaves of faraway trees also change their chemical composition similarly. Warned, as they are, by airborne plant chemicals released from the original trees under attack. Goldenrods signal an attack by a predator through strong chemical communication sent to all other goldenrod neighbors, just as humans warn their neighbors about a nearby fire or flood or crime.

Without any recognizable ears, plants sense sounds. The vibration of a predator insect chewing on its leaves causes a plant to make its own defensive pesticide. Beach evening primrose responds to the sound of honeybees in flight by increasing the sweetness of its nectar to attract them for pollination. Tree roots grow toward the sound of running water, including in pipes, where the roots often burst through causing great difficulties for municipalities. How do the various plants hear these stimulating sounds?

Plants have memory, some anticipating from past experience when a pollinator will show up for the plants’ pollen. Plants express social intelligence: Members of the pea family form relationships with bacteria living in their roots to have the bacteria supply beneficial nitrogen for the plants’ growth. Several kinds of plants provide a home and food for compatible ants who then attack the plants’ ant pests. Perhaps you have you noticed that late summer asters and goldenrod tend to grow as companions. Why? Together—their combined beauty—attracts more pollinators.

In finishing, I express my immense respect for the Indigenous worldview where wind, rocks, air, and rain are our kin, together with plants and nonhuman animals. We, humans, the most recent beings, depend on all of these elder kin; and this awareness, this worldview of connectivity among all beings, is our path back to Earth well-being.

I suffered through much of the three nights of non-reality programming called the 2024 Democratic National Convention. I watched nearly the whole fucking thing—the jugglers, acrobats, gladiator contests, cock fighting, and the dancers too. I sat mesmerized by an unlimited bounty of bread and circus offerings—lions and Christians, tight-rope walkers and card tricks—I might have been the only person on Earth to view pretty much the entire presentation.

Not exactly the whole thing—I walked my dog, checked baseball scores, spaced out and thought strange things, leafed through my brand new copy of The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson—but I came back to the DNC like a musician circling back to a particular theme or motif. And what a spectacular and awful show it was!

It resembled an extended commercial, an infomercial, perhaps, but it also seemed a bit like a funeral where people shuffle to the podium to convey memories that have been denuded of objective content—at a funeral no one wants to hear about DUI arrests and domestic battery, we only want the good stuff about how the departed climbed a tree and saved a kitten.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was given a magnificent send off to the land beyond the sun. We walked away knowing that she is a saintly woman at worst, and the daughter of God sent to save us at best. We heard not mere praise, but blessings, confessions, tears, and astonishment interspersed with tunes from Stevie Wonder, Pink, John Legend, and Sheila E! But what kind of funeral concludes with the deceased in the flesh, telling her own story? And what a story she told, being born into the almost Calcutta-style poverty of the Berkeley flats.

In the physically impossible dreamscape of DNC fantasy, Kamala Harris can say in a single paragraph that she will feed the military industrial complex as if she were a zoo keeper with a bucket of meat entering a cage of famished tigers, and at the same time, fight climate change.

I know something about the mean streets of West Berkeley myself, having lived on Channing Way between Bonar and Browning for over a decade. On the flat plains of Berkeley homes now can be purchased—if you are goddamn lucky—for a hair under a million dollars. But I lived there in the 80s and 90s and Kamala would have been long gone by the time my wife and I moved to the west coast.

The Berkeley flats (as I experienced them 40 years ago) cannot be placed in the usual system of class categories, for Berkeley existed just outside the normal boundaries of our four-dimensional universe. It simultaneously exhibited working class, middle class, and upper-middle class features in some bizarre overlapping glitch of the matrix. On our block lived two doctors, a factory foreman, a preschool teacher, a single grandmother on public assistance, and the proprietor of a crack house. Kamala, in her DNC acceptance speech, attempted to pass herself off as a onetime lower-middle class child oppressed by the disrespect endured by her parents—two immigrants of color.

Kamala wowed us all with social class contortions in which a family headed by two academics with doctorates can be passed off as the embodiment of disadvantage. In the DNC rhetoric of the day, we heard nothing of class, but only about race and immigration status. We were expected to be shocked that Kamala and her younger sister, Maya, somehow, against all odds, excelled in school and went on to elite law schools.

Of course, this is the American myth that corrupts our national soul—the idea that we live in a meritocratic democracy in which all the layers of status reflect pure work ethic, and privilege has no part in the outcome (you know—the meritocracy in which Donald Trump became a self-made man). I would have had so much more respect for Kamala Harris if she had looked the nation in the eye and said:

I was born with two silver spoons in my mouth and you probably were not. My parents each held doctorates and high positions in the worlds of research and academia, and yours most likely have less than a bachelor's diploma. Still, despite having had encouragement to study hard and succeed every day of my childhood, I do my best to imagine what it would be like to grow up in a family that owned no books, and I try to put myself in the shoes of someone forced to muddle through school with no guidance and no expectations. Of course, that is not easy for me, because my hyper educated parents made it almost impossible to envision what it might be like to feel that you are a stranger in school. But I will do my best to step outside myself and wear your five-year-old Nikes.

In the fun-house mirrors of American political theater, one has to know that every moment of election programming amounts to a pile of bullshit. In the crazy, refracted light of bent and broken images, Kamala Harris can simultaneously be part of the administration sending billions of dollars of weaponry to the IDF, and also grieve for those tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands according to The Lancet) of innocents crushed under Gazan rubble. In the physically impossible dreamscape of DNC fantasy, Kamala Harris can say in a single paragraph that she will feed the military industrial complex as if she were a zoo keeper with a bucket of meat entering a cage of famished tigers, and at the same time, fight climate change.

With all the trapeze artists, ballet dancers, and magicians beguiling us with feats of virtuosity, two things remained conspicuously absent at the DNC convention—a voice representing the agony of Palestinians and Kamala's father. I had assumed that professor of economics, Donald Harris, must be long dead, but a quick run to Wikipedia proved that he still resides on our planet. Is Dr. Harris Kamala's Mary Trump—the alienated family member in charge of family skeletons? If so, he bears witness oddly in silence and does not forcefully deposit his obscure secrets in public as does Dr. Mary Trump. Does his absence speak of something ominous? Mary Trump lets loose her family secrets with no inhibition and little enlightenment. She tells us nothing about her putrid uncle that we don't already know.

But even more concerning, in a circus promising to lift all of humanity out of the muck of discouragement and horror, the failure of the directors and producers of the DNC extravaganza to produce a solitary, sympathetic Palestinian voice cannot be dismissed as an oversight. The blue honchos who must have meticulously agonized about a Palestinian speaker willing to say a reassuring word to amputate Kamala Harris from our doubts about her role in the ongoing genocide in Gaza—they all somehow came up with bupkis.

In an affair of mass manipulation, that must have cost the price of a nuclear delivery system, the DNC could not clear the one very low bar that absolutely needed to be stepped over. Millions of people waited futilely to hear that Kamala Harris would depart from President Joe Biden over the matter of supplying bombs to continue a genocidal attack on Palestinian civilians.

The great fear that many potential voters have is this: Behind the opaque curtain, the Wizard of Oz wears a Donald Trump puppet on one hand, and a Kamala Harris puppet on the other. A vote for either is a vote for more war, beefed up police spending, a military budget big enough to attack every inhabited planet within a hundred light years, and a vote to burn every drop of fossil fuel still buried in the lithosphere. Every vote is a vote for Oz.

There is another narrative, that I can't completely dismiss—that Donald Trump is a monster that makes every run-of-the-mill genocidaire into a comparative Fred Rogers. It may be that we have a choice between something murderously cold hearted and destructive and something much, much worse. Trump gives me the creeps in a way that Kamala Harris does not, but that may just be my own paranoid distortions. I worry about falling into a pond and coming face to face with a basking salt water crocodile wearing an orange wig.

Noam Chomsky called Trump the most dangerous person in human history, or something to that effect. How much longer do we kick the can down the road with the right-wing Democrats wearing their FDR masks, knowing that we get no universal healthcare, no safety net, endless war and CO2? Most of the people that I know agree with Chomsky and will be voting for Harris. I don't hold that against them. Trump scares the shit out of most people with an intact set of wits.

We live in a time of irreconcilable truths: Donald Trump is a putrid psychopath with no more internal complexity than a bullet in a chamber. Kamala Harris can mimic human emotions, but I am not convinced that she feels real pain.

Maybe the choice is whether or not to admit that we have no choice. Welcome to America.

A few weeks ago, I plunged into Lake Michigan. Unlike usual, the water felt warm. It was easy to run all the way in and easy to float over the waves. Montrose beach was crowded with families, pitching tents to keep out of the sun. Children played, laughed, and cried. Midwesterners who still hadn’t made it out into the sun crisped their pale shoulders. It would have been a perfectly relaxing day, but fighter jets circled above everyone’s heads—doing dives and turning every which way. Mothers plugged their children’s ears and I saw a baby wearing noise canceling headphones.

It was the Air and Water show—an annual proud display of American military capabilities. They are the same jets that fly over the shores of Gaza, dropping bombs on families. That’s what I thought about—it was just by happenstance that we were there watching these planes as a performance rather than in Gaza as a weapon of mass slaughter. The more places I travel to, the more I realize how much the world looks the same. People everywhere are really kind and generous—the only thing that separates us is if the stars align to have us born under the boot of the United States or not.

As the jets flew over our heads I felt my stomach sour. In two weeks, the Democratic National Convention would come to Chicago and it was a present opportunity to make clear the contradictions that kept me up at night. Once months and months away, the DNC was finally around the corner.

Last week, members of the Democratic Party came from all parts of the country to convene in Chicago. They were coronating Kamala Harris as their presidential nominee, a woman no one really voted for. Even in the face of this blatant lack of democracy, the party members were elated to choose her. They carried signs with her husband’s name and applause erupted from the tens of thousands of people in the United Center when she declared that the United States would have the “most lethal military” in the world under her leadership. To the people well aware of the millions of people the United States killed in the last twenty years alone, her statement was a threat.

The week was marked by the obvious gaps between the people going into the United Center and the people outside of it.

There was a young woman that sat outside the exit of the Democratic National Convention on its third night reading the names of the children Israel has killed in the last ten months. She did it for hours, until her speaker battery died. She did it alone, taking care to pronounce every child’s name correctly and to say their age at the time of their murder. Without her, many of the DNC guests wouldn’t necessarily be confronted with the carnage members of their party is carrying out.

Outside the gates of the DNC I saw a young woman making sure the children of Palestine weren’t just numbers, and I saw people laughing at her for doing so. They laughed loudly and mocked her voice. They mocked the names of the dead babies. They yelled at her to leave them alone. They left the coronation ceremony livid that they had to even hear about Gaza.

That night was demoralizing, and it’s something I will remember for the rest of my life.

Democrats laugh at the names of dead children. They openly refuse to let a Palestinian speak for two minutes at their four day long event. They order riot cops on people protesting a genocide. They have their parties, fundraisers, and happy hours while bodies pile up. If they really didn’t think the genocide was so bad, they wouldn’t get so mad at us for reminding them. They knew that the people they were rallying behind are cheering on mass slaughter—they’ve just weighed their fun, their careers, and their vanity against the lives of 180,000 Palestinians and decided that nothing could be more important than themselves. I don’t care what they said to me, or my friends, but I hope our faces and our presence made them feel even an ounce of discomfort. In the best case scenario, I hope they went to sleep hearing the echoes of the martyrs' names. I still foolishly hope they turn a corner at some point.

There’s a lot to be said about the Democratic National Convention. It happened in the city with the largest Palestinian population in the United States. Plenty of our neighbors here have lost dozens and dozens of their immediate and extended families and Kamala Harris took to the stage to promise her ironclad support to their executioners. Riot cops filed into the streets, prepared to use the kettling tactics they used from the Israeli military. All of a sudden, the place I call home felt unrecognizable. The air of the coronation felt heavy—it didn’t feel like home. There were points where I was with thousands of other people, chanting in unison, but still felt so lonely. Luxury SUVs carried important people into important buildings for important events. And between us and the importance, there were police with rifles strapped to their chests.

But there were also good people. Like the girl outside the convention. And the thousand of people that marched with us. And the Shake Shack worker that joined us because he had 15 minutes before his shift started. And the security that had to kick us out to keep their job but told us how much what we were doing meant to them.

In the lead up to the DNC, we spent so much time thinking about the last DNC that happened here in 1968. Protests against the Vietnam War took to the streets in small numbers, demanding an end to the war. They were met with horrible police brutality, and mass arrests with long legal battles in their wake. Our mentors from ‘68 urged us not to be nostalgic for those days. I still admire them for going face to face with the Chicago riot cops, but I’ve also taken their reflections of ‘68 very seriously—they didn’t end the war on Vietnam. Many of them feel like they could have focused more on building a sustainable movement that people could join for the long haul. The 2024 DNC in Chicago presented us a unique opportunity—we had to take this huge moment of mass mobilization and make sure our efforts and organization doesn’t get washed away after all the balloons on the United Center floor had popped, and the important people flew out of O’Hare. When the dust settlesd and the most powerful people in the world left our city, how should we keep fighting? I was happy when so many people asked us what was next, because it meant we were thinking long term.

In our own discourses on the left, the week was consumed by the discussion of tactics—what works and what doesn’t. An organizer I know reminded us about our responsibility to be a movement people want to join. There are plenty of people who are sympathetic to our cause but haven’t figured out how to be part of it. There’s millions of people without a movement home. Our cause is already popular, it’s already growing every day. Are we doing what we can to make sure people know where to go? Are we keeping our eyes on the prize or are we getting so wrapped up in nostalgia that we can’t see what we will be capable of a year from now if we move strategically? We are nothing without the people. Our responsibility is to the people—not to our egos, not to our careers, not to the vanity of our organizations, and not to our impulses. As a movement we generally have to be better at unlearning instant gratification and also embracing a diversity of tactics. But that’s something for another day.

It is easy to stand on a police line. It’s easy to yell at politicians. It’s easy to say things and do things by yourself. It’s hard to organize your neighbors and talk to new people about things they don’t immediately understand—my hope comes from the idea that once we get really good at that, the light at the end of the tunnel will be as clear as day.

Chicagoans are loud, principled, and good people and because of that there're 2.6 million reasons to love this city. For a few days Chicagoans made certain Democrats couldn’t walk around our city without seeing and hearing about the people of Gaza. It’s my hope that we see that as a small success, and also my hope that we saw the week of mobilizations as a jumping off point for building the world we want to see.

Lake Michigan is connected to the ocean through narrow waterways along the northern border of the United States, and someone mentioned at a protest that it’s not unfathomable that the waves crashing onto the shores of Gaza were once here in Chicago, and vice versa. Even if we don’t have skies that are absent of fighter jets in my lifetime, every second spent moving us towards that kind of life was worth it. As long as we don’t throw in the towel, we are closer than ever to that reality.

Please, if you can, donate to help feed my friend’s family. Ahmed and his children, Yara, Tia and Iman, are struggling to get the food and water they need to survive in Gaza — this is an urgent request for help.

This blog originally appeared here on Proof That I’m Alive.

Earlier this month, a California condor, the first of its kind to hatch and take flight in Zion National Park, died of lead poisoning just shy of its fifth birthday. Shockingly, one of this condor’s siblings was earlier found to have the highest recorded lead value ever documented in a live bird over the entire 28-year history of the condor release program.

Lead poisoning remains the leading cause of diagnosed death among California condors. About 90% of condors trapped and tested during this past year had blood lead levels indicating lead exposure. As scavengers, condors ingest lead shot from carcasses of animals killed with lead-based ammunition.

But condors are not the only victims. Lead is a leading threat to all national park birdlife, especially bald eagles, hawks, and other raptors. Lead fragments from spent shells contaminate the entire wildlife food chain.

It’s time for decisive action to protect the wildlife that our national parks were created to preserve.

While most parks by law do not permit hunting, a significant number do. Of the 429 national parks, 76 allow various types of hunting—recreational, subsistence, or tribal hunting. These parks (the largest of which are in Alaska) cover more than 60% of land within the entire national park system. In addition, more than 85% of parks with fish (213 in all) are open for fishing with lead tackle.

The impact is devastating. More than 130 park wildlife species are exposed to or killed by ingesting lead or prey contaminated with lead.

These wildlife deaths are preventable. Since November of 2022, Interior Secretary Deborah Haaland, the cabinet officer overseeing the National Park Service, has had a proposed rule sitting on her desk that would end the use of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle in all park units. Despite this, no action has been taken on this rule-making petition.

In contrast to the Park Service’s total inaction, its sister agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (FWS) has declared that “lead ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on both wildlife and human health.” The FWS has taken the first tentative steps to reduce or eliminate the use of lead ammunition by:

• Imposing partial bans on lead ammunition in certain refuges where new hunting opportunities have opened up;

• Phasing out of lead ammunition on three refuges newly opened to hunting; and

• Developing a pilot program to reimburse hunters for using lead-free ammunition.

Though these steps do not constitute a complete ban on lead ammunition, they represent a significant step forward, especially considering that nearly 80% of wildlife refuges and other management districts offer hunting and fishing access.

Unfortunately, wildlife protection does not appear to be a high priority for National Park Service Director Chuck Sams and his leadership team. Earlier this year, he approved questionable hunting practices, such as killing bear cubs and wolf pups in their dens, using dogs and artificial lights to hunt black bears, and shooting swimming caribou from motorboats across more than 22 million acres of Park Service administered lands in Alaska.

These are not the actions of a conservation-focused agency.

Banning lead from our national parks would be one of the single biggest conservation advances in a generation. Such a move would place the Park Service alongside 26 states and countries that have already banned lead ammunition.

The ecological stakes are profound. It’s time for decisive action to protect the wildlife that our national parks were created to preserve.

Hours after U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, the president of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization J Street took a victory lap in an effusive email to supporters. “Wow,” Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote. “What a week! As J Streeters leave the Democratic National Convention fired up and ready to go, it’s clear we’re having a greater impact than ever.” He added that “the vice president’s remarks on Israel-Palestine were perhaps the clearest articulation of J Street’s values from a presidential nominee.”

But what are those “values” and how do they apply to what’s happening in Gaza?

Discussing Gaza, Harris’ DNC acceptance speech began with the anodyne evocation of “working on a cease-fire” of Gaza’s pounding that America is funding: “President Biden and I are working around the clock, because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a cease-fire deal done.”

Style aside, what Harris articulated about Israel-Palestine in her speech was no different than what President Joe Biden has been saying and doing since last fall while enabling the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

Then came the “ironclad” pledge of eternal support for Israel, justified in this case by the October 7 Hamas raid: “And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself…”

Key to Harris’ brief discussion of Gaza in her acceptance speech was the customary refusal in American political discourse to attribute the slaughter to the U.S. or its Israeli partner. Instead, there was a reference to “what has happened”—evoking victims without victimizers—in this way: “What has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.”

After pledging unconditional support for Israel’s military, Harris expressed sorrow—as if the horrors are being inflicted by a force of nature, not a military force that the U.S. government supplies with fundamental and essential support.

Style aside, what Harris articulated about Israel-Palestine in her speech was no different than what President Joe Biden has been saying and doing since last fall while enabling the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. The vehement enthusiasm from J Street, perhaps the USA’s leading liberal Zionist organization, is illuminating.

Harris carefully omitted any mention of the only way that the U.S. government could actually put an end to the suffering in Gaza that she called “heartbreaking”—an arms embargo to stop the huge shipments from the United States that provide the Israeli military with the weapons and ammunition it’s using to continue to massacre Palestinian people of all ages.

The Harris speech was consistent with the national party’s new platform—which “J Street helped shape,” Ben-Ami proudly wrote. But full affirmation of Biden’s policies toward the Gaza carnage should not have been any cause for celebration.

“As a Palestinian American who is an elected Democrat to the Colorado State House, it has been disheartening to witness Biden facilitate and abet Israel’s brutal war on Gaza with billions of dollars in U.S. weapons,” Iman Jodeh wrote during the convention. Harris “has said that an arms embargo—which human rights organizations have been calling for—is off the table, but that she supports a cease-fire.” However, “to truly reach a cease-fire and prevent a regional conflict, the U.S. must halt the arms shipments that fuel the conflict.”

The British medical journal The Lancet estimates that well over 100,000 residents of Gaza will die because of the Israeli bombardment and siege since October 7, as hunger and disease are endemic, and housing and infrastructure have been systematically destroyed. Polio is appearing in the devastated population of more than 2 million. Israel’s assault on the enclave, populated substantially by refugees from the 1948 creation of the Israeli state, remains unchecked—and is literally made possible by the continuous arms pipeline from the United States.

For J Street’s leadership, the current U.S. policy hits the spot. “Could not be prouder of VP Harris for her remarks on Israel/Palestine—and of Democrats’ reaction,” Ben-Ami tweeted after the convention adjourned. “This is what it means in 2024 to be pro-Israel, pro-peace, and pro-democracy.”

At the convention, the parents of a hostage held by Hamas since October 7 spoke. But no Palestinian American was allowed to say anything. In effect, the convention’s podium was a place of apartheid, mirroring the reality of Israel’s apartheid system. (In his email, Ben-Ami wistfully noted the missed opportunity: “Hosting the first ever Palestinian speaker at a national convention would have been a powerful way to underscore the shared goal of an immediate cease-fire and hostage deal, and the compassion the party feels for Palestinians and Israelis alike.”)

J Street is determined to help ensure that liberal Zionism does not question the “ironclad” U.S. commitment to Jewish nationalist control in Palestine, as discussed in articles I co-wrote that were published 10 years ago and last spring. The organization is eager to define the limits of acceptable criticism of Israeli government policies from the Democratic Party establishment—setting aside human rights considerations as secondary to the mantra of Israel’s “right to exist.” (Whether apartheid South Africa had a “right to exist” is not a topic open for discussion.)

J Street represents untenable liberal American Zionism that clings to the fantasy of a democratic and humane “Jewish state.” Washington office-holders pledge continued weapons resupply for that fantasy Jewish state—with no connection to the actual Israel that is now engaged in remorseless genocide.

In early August, the crew on Japan’s new whaling factory ship dismembered a male fin whale, the first commercial catch of the species in several decades. A few days earlier, Paul Watson was arrested in Nuuk, Greenland. He sits in a Danish prison, waiting a decision on his extradition to Japan. Given the Japanese courts’ record of 99.9% conviction rate for criminal cases, and issues with Japanese justice system, if extradited, he will probably spend the rest of his life imprisoned.

A few months ago, a paper led by Norwegian government scientists showed that there are around 50,000 fin whales in just one small part of the Southern Ocean. Also in Antarctic waters, the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research has been running a research program which, as the the Institute states, is the “aimed at the sustainable use of whale resources in the Antarctic Ocean.” A new era of commercial whaling in the Antarctic looms.

Forty years ago, the International Whaling Commission introduced the whaling moratorium—a pause in slaughter, to allow whale populations to recover. At the time, the belief by most in the whale conservation community was that by the time that whale populations finally recovered, those still engaged in whaling would have given up, making the moratorium permanent. That’s not what’s happened. Three nations—Japan, Norway, and Iceland—still engage in commercial whaling.

There are many arguments against whaling: it’s cruel, it has to be subsidized, most people in whaling nations don’t care about it, it’s traditional in very few places in Japan, whales don’t eat all the fish, instead they’re ecosystem engineers that contribute to carbon sequestration. These points have been made for many years, and have never had the slightest impact on the Japanese whaling bureaucracy. They’re not only irrelevant, they’ve proven pointless.

Whaling, it turns out, isn’t about whales at all. Japan’s primary interest in commercial whaling is to maintain their geopolitical clout to exploit other marine wildlife (“living marine resources”) internationally. Tuna, for example. This point’s been made recently in a couple of forums. For the Japanese government, whaling’s a thin-edge-of-the-wedge problem. The moratorium was a big win for marine conservation that couldn’t be repeated with other international fisheries.

Given this framing, the actions of the Japanese whaling industry over the past forty years are rational. Whaling is primarily about asserting dominance in international negotiations over access to marine wildlife, so whether or not Japanese people eat much whale meat is irrelevant. What matters is access to other fisheries by Japan’s pelagic fishing fleets. Subsidizing whaling is a minuscule price to pay. The primary role of Japan’s new floating factory, the Kangei Maru, is as a flagship, a symbol of Japanese hegemony in international maritime negotiations. So its $48 million price tag is trivial. A Ford class US aircraft carrier, with a build cost of around $13 billion and an annual upkeep of $700 million, puts that in perspective. The Kangei Maru’s costs are a rounding error.

Despite Japan leaving the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in late 2018, the Japanese fisheries bureaucracy still controls the activities of the pro-whaling bloc. This September, the IWC meets again. One rumor currently swirling is that the Japanese will rejoin the IWC with a reservation to commercial whaling, one way to demolish the whaling moratorium. Another appeared a couple of weeks ago, when the prestigious scientific journal Nature published an opinion piece calling for the IWC to be dismantled. The article’s first author is a former chair of the IWC, who with his coauthors, argue that the IWC is now a “zombie” organization that has outlived its usefulness and should be dismantled.

Interesting timing.

Once, the threat of US sanctions in response to “diminishing the effectiveness” of the IWC regulated the manner in which the whaling bloc engaged there. That threat—obviously—no longer exists. How have the whalers brought the U.S. to heel on whaling? What’s their lever?

There was a belief in the NGO community that the threat of withholding IWC quotas on U.S. Inuit bowhead whaling was driving U.S. acquiescence. The pro-whaling bloc engaged in brinkmanship on this several times in the past. But the “Aboriginal Subsistence” whaling issues at the IWC have been resolved, removing this threat. Besides, ending the IWC would put bowhead whaling management back entirely with the U.S., internally. It can’t be that.

It’s here the military comes in. The U.S. has around 55,000 military personnel based in Japan. This is, for example, almost the size of the Australia’s active duty defense forces. Their weaponry includes some the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Most of those personnel are based in Okinawa, where there were over 6,000 criminal cases involving U.S. military personnel in the 50 years since the island was handed back to Japan in 1972. That’s a couple of crimes a week. And they include reported 134 rapes, or two to three reported rapes per year, including recent charges of the sexual assault of a child. Understandably, there is a vocal anti-US-base movement in Okinawa that regularly engages in mass protest.

These put Paul Watson’s “accomplice to assault” and “ship trespass” charges in context.

At the same time, the U.S. is reconstituting its forces in Japan, a buildup in response to the perceived threat to U.S. hegemony now posed by China. The Japanese government has leverage. Getting its way on whaling is Japan’s price for U.S. bases.

What could happen? Possibilities include Japan rejoining the IWC with a reservation that allows it to conduct commercial whaling wherever it wants. Perhaps the IWC will collapse. The recent Nature article shows that destroying the IWC is being considered. Returning the management of whaling to whaling nations? We know how that worked. And allowing Japan’s return to the IWC with a reservation will return the IWC’s role to that of a toothless body overseeing mass slaughter.

The huge U.S. military presence in Japan matters to the national security apparatus of the United States. The bureaucracy has worked with the Japanese government to see commercial whaling return. The return of commercial whaling is the U.S. military's quid pro quo for its regional dominance in the Pacific—not to mention its rapists in Okinawa.

Sixty-one years after the 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom, our social fractures make it extraordinarily hard to reach broad consensus and commitment to continue the fight for racial equality and economic opportunity. Today, we struggle to remember the same history that catalyzed the Civil Rights movement and often ignore current realities of economic struggle that warrant more progress. When we ignore dishonest actors bent on exploiting racial divisions and disempowering Black people and other people of color our path forward becomes clearer. While we are entangled in a complex web of attacks against the wellbeing and political voice of Black people—and democracy itself—the demands from the March still ring true and require just solutions and an inclusive economic agenda.

In the past 61 years, we have celebrated significant achievements in economic equality and strengthening our democratic voice. However, the racist barriers we've dismantled since the March threaten a comeback. The Supreme Court severely weakened the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—a crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement—in its 2013 Shelby v. Holder ruling. Without the VRA’s protections, voters of color have faced a surge of state-based legislation aimed at limiting our political power. This includes attacks on drop boxes, early voting, and vote by mail—all mechanisms to make engagement in our democratic practice easier and more accessible. In Georgia, they even tried to eliminate Souls to the Polls, a celebrated civic engagement strategy. But we fought back and stopped them.

Because of our love for humanity, a faith and belief in the values of love, justice and liberty that transcend race, culture, religion, and political ideology, we must continue to build a more inclusive future.

In other instances, efforts to disempower voters involve making it harder to register or stay registered. While there are sensible ways to maintain and clean up voter lists, some states use overly broad methods that end up purging eligible voters. Ohio tried this in 2015, leading to voters showing up at the polls only to find their names missing from the rolls. Despite some early victories in court when Dēmos challenged Ohio with local partners, the case ultimately suffered a setback with a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2018.

More recently, we performed a deep analysis of voter purges in 10 states. What we found points to widespread practices that risk wrongful purges of eligible voters—from states that lack transparency in their process and data to rules that take eligible voters off the rolls.

Many of these decisions are no accidents. Rather, the attempts to curtail the political power of Black people and that of other communities of color is explicitly discussed in conservative and extremist settings. Restricting access to the ballot in this way means that thousands of voters have been blocked from the polls or seen their voting process become more complicated and less welcoming as part of a broader strategy to shift power to other demographic and political groups. When we affect the right to vote of thousands of Americans in these ways, it means that the line between today and the March on Washington 61 years ago is, at best, blurred.

Efforts to suppress the votes of people of color are inextricably linked to recent, more visible attempts to undermine democracy. The Big Lie—the false claim that former President Trump won the 2020 election if not for cheating—perpetuates dangerous myths. These and other toxic ideas propagated by nationalist rhetoric about people of color serve to dehumanize us. When a group views Black people as less than human, it will justify any action to disenfranchise and oppress our agency and our voice. And this ultimately affects our wellbeing.

Furthermore, the far right has openly revealed its next moves in Project 2025. Their plans are to seize control of governing, enforce an authoritarian vision, and further disempower and marginalize Black and brown people and other groups. Among their goals is to combat the baseless concept of "anti-white racism." In a nation of immigrants and a burgeoning multi-racial, multicultural population, these aims only proffer division and exclusion—a far cry from the freedom that we all proclaim as a right in America.

These challenges to our political voice do not take place without a fight. On the contrary: Everyday, individuals and advocates on the frontlines champion an agenda that empowers historically disenfranchised and disempowered communities and strengthens our democracy. In our case, at Dēmos, our power agenda seeks to dismantle systemic barriers and build a more inclusive society where every voice is heard and valued and our economy benefits us all. Through innovative policies and grassroots mobilization, we are working for a future where equity, justice, and economic stability are not just aspirations but sustainable realities.

The path ahead is fraught with challenges, but we have always navigated tough journeys. Our opponents in the quest for equity are more determined than ever, often resorting to violence and unlawful, anti-democratic actions. Yet, we draw strength from the resilience and moral conviction of past generations who forged ahead when policies and promises fell short. Because of our love for humanity, a faith and belief in the values of love, justice and liberty that transcend race, culture, religion, and political ideology, we must continue to build a more inclusive future. Let’s sharpen our focus, unite our efforts, and seize the momentum to drive the transformative changes we need. Let's build our power to succeed, together.

The Biden administration recently approved five major arms sales to Israel for F-15 fighter aircraft, tank ammunition, tactical vehicles, air-to-air missiles, mortar rounds, and related equipment for each. Though technically sales, most if not all of this matériel is paid for by U.S. taxpayers — Israel uses much of the military aid Congress approves for it effectively as a gift card to buy U.S.-made weapons.

The total value of the five weapons sales exceeds $20.3 billion.

More extraordinary than the price tag of these arms deals is that the White House made them public. Prior to last week’s announcements, it had disclosed just two arms sales to Israel. By March, the Biden administration had already greenlit more than 100 separate weapons deals for Israel, or about one every 36 hours, on average. The administration presumably kept the value of each arms deal “under threshold” to avoid having to notify Congress.

From 2017 to 2019, the U.S. had approved thousands of below-threshold arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates worth a total of $11.2 billion. Exploiting this loophole helped the Trump administration avoid scrutiny of its enabling of a devastating and indiscriminate bombing campaign in Yemen. The Biden administration appears to be following the same playbook for the destruction it is enabling in Gaza.

The White House isn’t shy about publicizing arms transfers to other countries. For example, it has been very transparent about the military aid it sent Ukraine since February 2022. Biden promotes arming Ukraine as industrial policy, marketing the military aid as a boon for domestic manufacturing and jobs. The Pentagon not only itemizes what specific matériel the U.S. sends to Ukraine, but also shows on a map where in the U.S. those weapons and equipment are made.

By contrast, nearly all the publicly available information on U.S. arms transfers to Israel comes from leaks reported by the media. The Biden administration says very little about the weapons it delivers to Israel or how the Israeli military uses them. The following analysis is intended to shed light on both. In doing so, it helps explain why the Biden administration prefers to arm Israel in secret.

What follows is a non-exhaustive list of attacks by the Israeli military since October 7 that likely violated international law, grouped by the type of U.S.-supplied weapon involved in the attack.

In order for an attack to be listed below, there must be sufficient evidence that it violated international law. In all of the following cases, it’s at least more likely than not that the attack was a violation. Many of them almost certainly were in breach of international law. This is a very high threshold — as former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The law of war permits vast death and destruction. This is true even under restrictive interpretations of the law.”

Furthermore, in order for an attack to be listed, there must be concrete forensic evidence that a U.S.-supplied weapon was likely used to commit the probable violation of international law. Only the types of weapons the U.S. has reportedly delivered to Israel since October 7 are considered. This report draws from forensic investigations that have been conducted by reputable international organizations, civil society groups, media outlets, and independent analysts.

The following 20 incidents represent a small fraction of potential war crimes committed with U.S.-provided weapons. First, information gathering and fact finding is extremely difficult. Israel restricts U.N. and NGO access to Gaza and doesn’t cooperate with investigations into misuse of U.S.-supplied arms. Members of the press are routinely denied access or attacked: Since October 2023, 116 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israeli airstrikes or sniper fire in Gaza, representing 86 percent of all those killed worldwide, according to data from the Committee to Protect Journalists. Prolonged communication blackouts are commonplace in Gaza.

Second, Israel’s military campaign relies on U.S. weapons, and so U.S. matériel is involved in nearly every facet of Israel’s campaign. For example, Israel uses U.S.-made aircraft like the F-35, F-16, and F-15 to drop U.S.-made bombs, including the MK-84 (2,000 pounds), MK-83 (1,000 pounds), MK-82 (500 pounds), and 250-pound “small diameter” bombs, which can be fitted with U.S.-made Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kits.

The vast majority of bombs Israel drops on Gaza are U.S.-made. The U.S. even provides Israel with jet fuel. The U.S. has sent so many arms to Israel since October 7 that the Pentagon has struggled to find sufficient cargo aircraft to deliver the matériel.

Third, Israel’s campaign is historically destructive. In the three weeks after October 7, Israel dropped an average of 6,000 bombs on Gaza per week. By comparison, U.S. and coalition forces dropped on average 488 bombs per week on ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) between August 2014 and March 2019. OIR caused immense civilian harm — particularly in densely-populated areas like Mosul and Raqqa — but the scale of death and destruction doesn’t come close to what Israel has done in Gaza.

A former high-ranking officer in the Israeli military told Haaretz that Israeli forces could have made as much progress as they have so far in Gaza with one-tenth of the destruction. This “unusually wasteful” and “reckless” conduct “reflects an absolute assumption that the U.S. will continue to arm and finance it,” he is quoted as saying.

What’s more, according to reporting, Israel has used an Artificial Intelligence program called “Lavender” to generate an unprecedented number of bombing targets with minimal human oversight. The AI program is coded with instructions that appear inconsistent with international law and is deployed with little to no human oversight.

The Biden administration acknowledges that Israel likely broke human rights law with U.S.-supplied weapons, but claims it doesn’t have enough evidence to link U.S.-supplied weapons to specific violations that would warrant cutting off military aid to Israel. As national security adviser Jake Sullivan told CBS, “We do not have enough information to reach definitive conclusions about particular incidents or to make legal determinations, but we do have enough information to have concern…Our hearts break about the loss of innocent Palestinian life.”

None of that is believable. As this report demonstrates, there is more than enough available information. If the Biden administration is truly concerned about the loss of innocent Palestinian life in Gaza, it can stop Israel’s atrocities by denying it the tools it needs to commit them.

MK-84 and other 2,000-pound bombs

Amount delivered since October 7: At least 14,100 (as of June 28). The U.S. sent Israel at least 14,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs from early October to late June. Another shipment 1,800 MK-84s is pending: The White House approved their transfer in March, but then paused shipping them in May. The U.S. also delivered 100 2,000-pound BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs between October 7 and December 1.

By mid-December, the Biden administration had already provided Israel with more than 5,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, four times heavier than the largest bombs the U.S. dropped in Syria and Iraq in its war against ISIS. In the first month of its military offensive in Gaza, Israeli forces dropped more than 500 2,000-pound bombs, more than 40 percent of which were dropped in Israeli-designated safe zones. Six weeks into the war, Israel had dropped 2,000-pound bombs in areas to which it had instructed civilians to flee more than 200 times.

• October 9, 2023: Israeli airstrikes hit a busy market in Jabalia refugee camp, killing at least 69 people. The market was more crowded than usual because people were in the process of fleeing their homes at the instruction of the Israeli military. The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) analysis reported that “one or two GBU-31 air dropped munitions were used” and found no military objective to justify the strike. The GBU-31 is made from a U.S.-made 2,000-pound MK 84 or BLU-109 bomb and a JDAM guidance kit. Neither U.N. OHCHR nor Amnesty International found evidence of a military target at the time of the attack. Even if there was a legitimate military target, the scale of destruction indicates the Israeli military’s attack was disproportionate. Disproportionate attacks are war crimes — international law prohibits attacks that are expected to cause excessive civilian harm compared to the direct and provable military advantage anticipated from the attack.
• October 17, 2023: After the Israeli military told Gazans to flee to Khan Yunis for their safety, it bombed the al-Lamdani family house in Khan Yunis. Between 15 and 40 people were killed in the attack. Remnants of a U.S.-made MK-84 2,000-pound bomb were found at the site
• October 25, 2023: Israeli airstrikes flattened at least 5,700 square meters in the Al Yarmouk neighborhood of Gaza City, killing at least 91 people, including 39 children. A U.N. assessment determined that “several” 2,000-pound GBU-31s air-dropped munitions were likely dropped by Israeli forces in the attack. According to a report from U.N. OHCHR, “The use of a GBU-31 or a GBU-32, in such densely populated areas in the middle of residential neighborhoods when extensive civilian harm would be foreseeable, raises very serious concerns that those attacks were disproportionate and/or indiscriminate, and that no or insufficient precautions were taken.”
• October 31, 2023: After Israeli airstrikes on Jabalia, Gaza’s largest refugee camp, a nearby hospital said it received 400 casualties, including 120 dead, most of whom were women and children. An analysis of the site showed at least five craters, the largest one likely from a GBU-31. The GBU-31 is made from a JDAM and either a 2,000-pound BLU-109 or MK-84 bomb. According to reports, Israeli forces gave no warning before the attack, and no effort was made to evacuate the residential buildings. U.N. OHCHR said the attack on Jabalia refugee camp could amount to a war crime.
• January 13, 2024: Israeli forces dropped a U.S.-made MK-84 2,000-pound bomb from a U.S.-made F-16 aircraft on a house in Deir al-Balah but it didn’t explode. A second airstrike did destroy the home, leaving an approximately 40-foot size crater, characteristic of a 2,000-pound bomb with a delayed fuse. The Israeli military had designated Deir al-Balah as a safe zone in October. Israeli forces instructed Palestinians in northern Gaza to flee there on December 11 and told Palestinians in central Gaza the same thing on December 22. By mid-January, Israeli bombing had leveled entire city blocks and dozens of family homes in Deir al-Balah.

GBU-39 and other ‘small diameter’ bombs

Amount delivered since October: At least 2,600 (as of June). More than 2,000 of these “small-diameter” bombs are 250-pound GBU-39 munitions. After Israel received an expedited shipment of 1,000 Boeing-made GBU-39s in early October, the Biden administration approved the transfer of more than 1,000 GBU-39 bombs for Israel on April 1, the same day that Israeli forces bombed a World Central Kitchen convoy, killing seven aid workers. It’s likely that far more GBU-39s have been delivered to Israel than the amount listed here.

Purportedly out of concern for Palestinian civilians, the Biden administration is urging the Israeli military to use more 250-pound GBU-39s and fewer less-precise 2,000-pound bombs. The result appears to have been a surge in possible war crimes committed with GBU-39s. The relative size of bombs doesn’t matter much if Israeli forces disregard fundamental rules governing targeting in international law, including distinction, precautions, and proportionality. As retired U.S. Air Force master sergeant Wes Bryant told the New York Times, “While they’re using smaller bombs, they’re still deliberately targeting where they know there are civilians.”

Boeing markets its GBU-39 as a “low collateral damage” precision weapon. Echoing Boeing, White House spokesperson John Kirby said Israel’s use of these 250-pound bombs is “certainly indicative of an effort to be discreet and targeted and precise.” The blast from a GBU-39 bomb can kill or injure people over 1,000 feet away, and shrapnel from the bomb’s steel casing can kill or injure anyone within 570 feet.

• January 9, 2024: Israeli forces bombed a residential building in a neighborhood the Israeli military had repeatedly ordered displaced Gazans to flee to. The attack killed 18 people, including 10 children, and wounded at least eight others. Israeli forces gave no warning to evacuate. An investigation found no evidence that the building or anyone in it could be considered a legitimate military target. The Israeli government has yet to give a reason for the strike. Fragments from a U.S.-made Boeing GBU-39 were recovered from the rubble.
• May 13, 2024: Israeli forces bombed a school housing displaced civilians in Nuseirat, killing up to 30 people. A tail fin of a U.S.-made GBU-39 was recovered at the location of the strike

(Credit above @AlQastalps)

• May 26, 2024: An Israeli airstrike on a displacement camp in Rafah filled with makeshift tents killed at least 46 people — including 23 women, children and older adults — and injured more than 240 others. The tail of a U.S.-made GBU-39 bomb was recovered at the site of the attack. The “81873” on the munition fragment is the identifier code the U.S. government assigned to Woodward, a Colorado-based manufacturer that supplies bomb parts, including the GBU-39. The State Department refused to acknowledge that this was a U.S.-made weapon. Israeli forces claimed munitions stored at the camp caused most of the devastation, but there is no evidence of a weapons cache present.

(Credit above: @trbrtc/Alam Sadeq)

• June 6, 2024: At least two GBU-39 munitions were used in an Israeli airstrike on the UN-run al-Sardi school in Nusreit, central Gaza. At least 40 people were killed in the strike, including nine women and 14 children. About 6,000 displaced Palestinians were sheltering at the school when it was bombed. The Israeli military denied that there were any civilian casualties. Israeli human rights group B’Tselem said the attack is a possible war crime. A U.S.-made navigation device manufactured by Honeywell was also documented at the site.
• August 10, 2024: More than 100 Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike on al-Tabin school in Gaza City, which was being used to shelter displaced people. The Israeli military said it used “precise munitions.” Paramedics who arrived at the scene said they found bodies “ripped to pieces” and that many bodies were unidentifiable. Parents reported difficulty identifying their deceased children. Remnants of at least two Boeing-made GBU-39 small diameter bombs were identified at the scene. Two investigations found no evidence that the school was being used for military operations, as the Israeli military claimed. The list of fighters the Israeli army alleged it killed in the strike included several people who had previously been listed as deceased and civilians with no known military ties.

Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)

Amount delivered since October 7: At least 3,000 (as of December 1).

• October 10, 2023: An Israeli airstrike on the al-Najjar family home in Deir al-Balah killed 24 civilians. The code stamped on a recovered munition fragment, 70P862352, indicates that a U.S.-supplied JDAM was used in the attack. The Boeing-made guidance kit was likely fitted to a 2,000-pound bomb. Survivors said Israel gave civilians no warning of an imminent strike. Amnesty International said the attack must be investigated as a war crime.
• October 22, 2023: An Israeli airstrike on the Abu Mu’eileq family home in Deir al-Balah killed 19 people, including 12 children. The home was located in the area to which the Israeli military had ordered residents of northern Gaza to flee on October 13. The code stamped on the recovered scrap, 70P862352, is associated with JDAMs and Boeing. The Boeing-made JDAM kit was fitted to a bomb that weighed at least 1,000-pounds. Survivors said Israel gave no warning of an imminent strike. Amnesty International said the attack must be investigated as a war crime.
• March 27, 2024: An Israeli strike on the Emergency and Relief Corps of the Lebanese Succour Association, a humanitarian organization, killed seven emergency and relief volunteers in southern Lebanon. The strike used a U.S.-made JDAM guidance kit affixed to an Israeli-made 500-pound bomb. Human Rights Watch said that the incident should be investigated as a war crime.
• July 13, 2024: An Israeli strike on the Al-Mawasi — an Israeli military-designated “safe zone” — killed over 90 people and injured hundreds more. Remnants of a U.S.-made JDAM were found at the scene. Based on the size of the fin fragment, the JDAM was likely fitted to either a 1,000- or 2,000-pound bomb.

Hellfire missiles

Amount delivered: At least 3,000 (as of June 28)

• June 8, 2024: Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages in the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza killed nearly 300 Palestinians. A witness reported Israeli attack helicopters launching many strikes in Nuseirat and surrounding areas. Another witness said 150 rockets fell in less than 10 minutes. Remnants of at least two U.S.-made Hellfire missiles were found in a damaged residential building. Video shows U.S.-made Apache helicopters firing several Hellfire missiles into the Nuseirat refugee camp. The Israeli military also bombed a busy market several blocks south of where the Israeli hostages were kept, and in the opposite direction of the evacuation route. U.N. OHCHR said the raid “seriously calls into question whether the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution — as set out under the laws of war — were respected by the Israeli forces.”
• June 23, 2024: An Israeli airstrike on a health clinic in Gaza City killed five people, including Hani al-Jaafarawi, Gaza’s director of ambulances and emergency. He was reportedly the 500th medical worker killed during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The rocket motor of a U.S.-supplied Hellfire missile was recovered at the health care center.
• July 14, 2024: Hundreds of Palestinians were taking refuge at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) Abu Oraiban school when it was hit by an Israeli airstrike, killing at least 22 people. The Israeli military issued no warning to the displaced people sheltering there before the attack. U.S.-made Hellfire missile fragments were found at the school, including part of its guidance system and motor. (Remnants of a Boeing-made GBU-39’s tail section were also recovered at the site.)

(Credit above: @Easybakeovensz)

120mm tank shells

Amount delivered since October 7: At least 13,981. A day after the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of hostages, the White House notified Congress on December 8 that it had approved the sale of 13,981 120mm M830A1 high-explosive tank cartridges to Israel.

The Biden administration invoked an emergency authority to bypass the congressional review period. Because the shells were sourced from U.S. Army inventory, they could be transferred immediately to Israel.

The day before, Reuters, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International all published investigations providing evidence that an Israeli tank likely deliberately fired two Israeli-made 120mm shells at a group of journalists in southern Lebanon in October, killing one Reuters journalist and injuring six others. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said the incident was an apparent war crime. Israeli tanks have also struck hospitals and humanitarian shelters using 120mm tank rounds. On August 13, the Biden administration notified Congress that it approved a $774 million arms sale to Israel for 32,739 120mm tank cartridges.

• January 29, 2024: Six-year-old Hind Rajab was the only survivor in her family’s car after Israeli tanks opened fire. Over the phone, Hind begged rescue workers to come save her. The Palestine Red Crescent Society dispatched an ambulance with two emergency workers. At least one Israeli tank opened fire, killing both paramedics. A fragment of a U.S.-made M830A1 120mm tank round was documented at the scene.

155mm artillery shells

Amount delivered: At least 57,000 (as of December 1). This total includes thousands of 155mm rounds originally for Ukraine that the Biden administration diverted to Israel in October. Netanyahu specifically requested 155mm artillery shells from U.S. lawmakers in mid-November.

Around the same time, more than 30 organizations urged the Biden administration to not supply Israel with these munitions because their inaccuracy and 100-300 meter casualty radius make them “inherently indiscriminate” in the Gaza context. “It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which high explosive 155mm artillery shells could be used in Gaza in compliance with [international humanitarian law],” the organizations wrote.

On December 29, the White House notified Congress that it approved the sale of an additional 57,021 155mm shells to Israel. The Biden administration invoked an emergency authority to bypass the congressional review period. Israeli forces will likely fire these rounds from U.S.-made howitzers. The Israeli military announced earlier that month it fired over 100,000 artillery rounds during the first 40 days of its ground invasion of Gaza, adding that artillery plays a “central role” by providing “intense fire cover” for its ground forces.

• October 16: Israeli forces fired 155mm artillery shells containing white phosphorus into Dhayra, southern Lebanon. At least nine civilians were killed and civilian property was damaged. Lot production codes found on the shells indicate they were made in the US. Amnesty International said the attack was indiscriminate and must be investigated as a war crime.

Armored vehicles

Amount delivered since October 7: Unknown. The Israeli Ministry of Defense reported on October 19 that U.S. Air Force cargo airplanes delivered the first tranche of U.S.-made David light armored vehicles, part of a $22 million arms deal from April 2023.

• November 14, 2023: The first photo below from the Israeli Ministry of Defense shows David light armor vehicles after being unloaded from a U.S. Air Force C-17 at Ben Gurion Airport on October 19. The second photo shows Israeli forces using David light armor vehicles to obstruct an ambulance en route to a hospital on November 14, arresting the wounded person inside. International humanitarian law prohibits attacks on and obstruction of medical transport.

The 2024 Democratic National Convention was an exhausting roller coaster ride for Arab Americans and supporters of Palestinian rights. It was a messy affair, with highs and lows, some small victories and some setbacks. But on balance, the naysayers are wrong, because Palestine and supporters of Palestinian rights were big winners during the four days in Chicago.

We didn’t get language on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changed in the party platform, nor did we get a Palestinian American speaker in prime time from the convention’s main stage. But the issue of Palestine was front and center from Monday through Thursday, and in the days that followed. They were little wins, to be sure, but they were victories, nonetheless.

On Monday, the convention agreed to host a panel on Palestinian suffering at an official site. It was co-chaired by Minnesota Attorney General (former Congressman) Keith Ellison and myself. It featured the compelling testimonies of: Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan who told harrowing stories of children and medical workers who were victims of the genocidal war on Gaza; Layla Elabed, a Palestinian American leader of the national Uncommitted Movement that garnered 750,000 voters, protesting the administration’s complicity in the war; former Congressman Andy Levin, who lost his reelection due to AIPAC spending millions to defeat him; and Hala Hijazi, a Palestinian American Democratic Party fundraiser who had lost scores of family members in Gaza.

There had been over 30 of these official side panels hosted by the campaign. Most had been sparsely attended by delegates and party members; for example, the one on the war in Ukraine had less than one hundred participants. This session on Palestine had well over 300 attendees, with most deeply moved by what they heard. There were many tears shed as well as a number of standing ovations in support of the speakers and issues raised.

Now isn’t the time to withdraw in defeatist anger. Instead, it’s imperative to recognize the victories won and continue to engage with allies in the political process, because change will come...

It was understood that securing the official sponsorship for the panel wasn’t the victory we sought. Our goal remains a change in U.S. policy. But recognition of Palestinian suffering and Israel and the U.S.’s responsibility for producing this genocidal war was important and could not be dismissed.

News that an Israeli American family would take the convention’s main stage to tell about their son who was a Hamas-held hostage upped the ante and led us to insist that a Palestinian American also be invited to tell the story of their family in Gaza. Days of negotiations followed. When the decision was made to not extend an invitation, Abbas Alawieh, another of the leaders of the National Uncommitted Movement, led a protest walkout from the arena and a sit-in in front of the convention.

I called this campaign decision a “bone-headed, unforced error.” It was deeply hurtful to Palestinian Americans who felt their humanity wasn’t being recognized. It threatened to erase the positives gained by the campaign’s recognition of our panel, leaving supporters of Palestinian rights with a sour taste in their mouths. But it also meant—and this is important to recognize—that the issue of Palestine and the effort to silence our voices would once again be elevated to the center of discussion. Over the next 24 hours, we held multiple press conferences and spoke one-on-one with dozens of journalists ensuring that the issue of Palestinian rights would continue to be discussed—and it was. Endorsements for having a Palestinian American speaker came from members of Congress, national organizations (including Jewish groups), Black and Hispanic leaders, two prominent Jewish newspapers, and even the Israeli American family that had spoken at the convention.

Reviewing the convention itself, it was moving to see hundreds of delegates, including hundreds of Harris supporters, wearing kaffiyehs or “Democrats for Palestine” buttons, including Vice President Harris’s niece. It was also important to note that when Palestine was mentioned by speakers, it was greeted by rousing applause. And while in her speech Vice President Harris included the usual commitments to Israel’s security, her words about Palestinian suffering were passionate and punctuated by her commitment to their “freedom, security, dignity, and self-determination.” That’s more than any other presidential nominee has ever said. And so, despite the hurt, the entire saga represented a win—one we must recognize and embrace, and on which we must now build.

Today’s movement for justice for Palestinians isn’t riding on the back of a leader. It is a people-powered movement, from the bottom up.

Thirty-six years ago, I was the last Arab American to speak about Palestinian rights at a national party convention when, in 1988, I presented the Jackson campaign’s minority plank on Palestinian rights from the podium in Atlanta. I knew it was a historic moment and in the days that followed I experienced the backlash from pro-Israel forces within the party. They pressured me to resign my post as a member of the Democratic National Committee. It was then that Rev. Jackson taught me two important lessons I’ve not forgotten.

The first was that “When you win a victory, embrace it but never turn your back, because the knives will be out to get you.” The other was, “Never quit, because that’s exactly what your enemies want you to do. What they fear most is that you’ll stick around to fight.”

These lessons apply today, with a difference. In 1988, we were able to raise the issue because it was a powerful Jackson-led movement. Today’s movement for justice for Palestinians isn’t riding on the back of a leader. It is a people-powered movement, from the bottom up. This effort has mobilized to pass ceasefire resolutions in over 350 cities and won the support of major unions, Black, Latino, and Asian organizations. It is responsible for demonstrations mobilizing millions of Americans, encampments on over 100 college campuses, and garnering over 750,000 votes in Democratic primaries across the US. Polls show that the majority of Democrats want a ceasefire, conditioning arms to Israel, and securing rights for Palestinians.

Now isn’t the time to withdraw in defeatist anger. Instead, it’s imperative to recognize the victories won and continue to engage with allies in the political process, because change will come—but only if this work continues.

In an already historic presidential campaign featuring the rising threat of Christian nationalism, assassination attempts, and the sudden switch of a presidential nominee, one of the most under-the-radar but worrying developments has been how the Democratic Party has increasingly sought to associate its militaristic policies with a campaign centered on "hope" and "joy." This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy. As the United States grapples with the genuine threat of far-right extremism and the specter of Trumpism, it becomes crucial to critically examine the Democrats' approach to national security and foreign policy.

The Democratic Party's emphasis on hope and joy in their political messaging is not new. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, with its iconic "Hope" poster and message of change, set a precedent for this approach. In the face of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the Democrats have doubled down on this strategy, presenting themselves as the guardians of democracy and harbingers of a brighter future.

However, this narrative of hope and progress is increasingly intertwined with a commitment to maintaining and even expanding American military dominance. Nowhere was this more evident than in Vice President Kamala Harris' acceptance speech, where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains "the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world."

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions.

This juxtaposition of hope and militarism creates a troubling paradox. On one hand, the Democrats present themselves as champions of peace, multilateralism, and global cooperation. On the other, they continue to advocate for policies that perpetuate a cycle of global conflict and divert resources from pressing domestic needs.

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions. Despite rhetoric about creating an "opportunity economy" and investing in social programs, the reality is that trillions of dollars continue to flow into military spending. This massive allocation of resources not only prevents real investment in creating a more equitable and sustainable society but also fuels global conflicts and instability.

The growing marketplace for surveillance technology globally further complicates this picture. As the United States seeks to maintain its technological edge in military and intelligence capabilities, it simultaneously exports these technologies to allies and partners around the world. This proliferation of surveillance tools raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for authoritarian abuse.

The Dangerous Conflation of Militarism with Progress and Democracy

One of the most concerning aspects of the Democrats' approach is the attempt to link militarism with concepts of multilateralism and global cooperation. This rhetoric, championed by President Biden and his predecessors, suggests that a strong military is essential for maintaining international order and promoting democratic values abroad.

However, this conflation ignores the complex realities of global politics and the often counterproductive effects of military intervention, where even legitimate support for regimes can turn into a profitable opportunity for weapon’s makers. By framing military power as a tool for promoting democracy and human rights, the Democrats risk legitimizing interventions that may ultimately undermine these very values.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally. At home, the massive defense budget diverts resources from critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. This misallocation of funds perpetuates economic inequality and hinders efforts to address pressing social issues. Globally, the United States' military-first approach to foreign policy has often led to unintended consequences. From the destabilization of entire regions to the creation of power vacuums that give rise to extremist groups, the track record of American military interventions is far from unambiguously positive.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally.

Perhaps most troubling is the way in which militarism is being normalized and even celebrated within ostensibly progressive political discourse. By linking military power to concepts of hope, progress, and global cooperation, the Democrats are fundamentally reshaping the way Americans think about the role of force in international relations. This normalization process makes it increasingly difficult to question or challenge militaristic policies. When criticism of military spending or interventions is framed as opposition to "hope" or "progress," it becomes easier to marginalize voices calling for a more peaceful and just foreign policy.

The US embrace of surveillance technology as a tool for local and national security raises serious questions about the compatibility of these practices with democratic values. While presented as necessary for protecting citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, the expansion of surveillance capabilities poses significant risks to civil liberties and privacy rights. Moreover, the export of surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable human rights records, undermines the Democrats' claims to be champions of democracy and freedom. This contradiction between rhetoric and action further erodes trust in the political system and reinforces cynicism about the true motives behind foreign policy decisions.

The Rising Threat of “Hopeful” Militarism

The Democratic Party's approach to militarism presents a unique danger in American politics, one that diverges significantly from the overt hawkishness often associated with their Republican counterparts. While figures like Trump and the far-Right occasionally denounce "endless wars" - even as they continue to support the military-industrial complex - the Democrats have crafted a narrative that intertwines militarism with a vision of global progress and democratic idealism.

This rhetorical strategy embodies a distinct form of hypocrisy. By framing military interventions and the maintenance of global military supremacy as essential components of preserving and spreading democracy worldwide, the Democrats have effectively weaponized hope. They present militarism not as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of an optimistic, forward-looking vision for both domestic and international progress.

The risk lies in how this framing normalizes and even glorifies military action. When couched in the language of hope, democracy, and global cooperation, policies that perpetuate conflict and divert resources from crucial social needs become more palatable to a progressive audience. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows the Democrats to pursue interventionist policies while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of their supporters.

Furthermore, this "hopeful" militarism creates a false dichotomy: either support military action or abandon the cause of global democracy. By conflating military might with democratic values, the Democrats make it challenging to envision alternative approaches to international relations and conflict resolution. This narrative effectively silences critics, painting them as pessimists or isolationists who lack faith in American ideals.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions. When military interventions are framed as necessary steps towards a more peaceful and democratic world, it becomes easier to overlook the immediate human cost and long-term destabilizing effects of such interventions. The rhetoric of hope acts as a veil, concealing the harsh realities of war and occupation behind a facade of noble intentions.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions.

This approach also shores up support for the military-industrial complex among those who might otherwise be its critics. By aligning military spending with progressive values, the Democrats create a cognitive dissonance that allows their supporters to reconcile their desire for social progress with continued investment in weapons and warfare. This effectively broadens the base of support for militaristic policies, making substantive changes to America's foreign policy approach even more challenging.

The Democrats' "hopeful" justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good. This approach not only perpetuates harmful policies but also corrupts the very ideals it claims to uphold, turning concepts like hope, democracy, and progress into tools for justifying military dominance.

Recognizing and confronting this rhetorical strategy is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge the prevailing paradigm of American militarism. It requires a willingness to question even those narratives that align with our values and to critically examine the gap between hopeful rhetoric and the often harsh realities of military action. Only by disentangling our aspirations for a more just and democratic world from the machinery of war can we begin to forge a truly progressive approach to global affairs.

Reimagining Security and Reclaiming Hope

As we confront the challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to global inequality, it is crucial to reimagine our approach to security and progress. True hope for the future lies not in maintaining military dominance but in addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.

Investing in diplomacy, international development, and conflict resolution could yield far greater returns in terms of global security than continued military buildup. Similarly, redirecting resources towards education, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure could create genuine economic opportunities and improve the lives of millions of Americans.

Challenging the dominant narrative of militarism as progress will require concerted effort from civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and engaged citizens. By highlighting the true costs of militarism and presenting alternative visions for national security and global cooperation, these groups can help shift the public discourse.

The Democratic Party's attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power. While the threats posed by far-right extremism and global authoritarianism are real, the answer does not lie in perpetuating a cycle of militarism and conflict.

True hope for the future lies in reimagining our approach to national security, global cooperation, and economic progress. One where movements social movements around the world can unite to support one another in resisting and replacing economic and political oligarchs locally and globally. By challenging the normalization of militarism within progressive discourse and presenting alternative visions for a more peaceful and just world, we can reclaim the concept of hope from those who would use it to justify endless war and surveillance.

On the DMZ America Podcast, political cartoonists and analysts Ted Rall (on the Left) and Scott Stantis (on the Right) break down the news and politics that affect your life.

This week, Kamala Harris accepts the Democratic presidential nomination. Who will prevail in the upcoming debates between her and Trump? Will she be able to avoid policy specifics and appearances with a hostile press through Election Day?

Also, Scott and Ted explain the current state of the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the latter of which now has a new front in Russia as well.

Watch the Video Version: here.

The post DMZ America Podcast #161: Harris vs. Trump, Israel vs. Gaza, Ukraine vs. Russia first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Four years ago in 2020, Democrats said that the fact that Joe Biden was 78 years old and showing early signs of dementia was not a problem, that he would certainly be able to finish up at least his first term and maybe even run for reelection. Now, Donald Trump is 78 years old and showing early signs of dementia.

The post Age 78? Why Worry? first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.