The post Why the Trumpists’ Calls for Dictatorship Should Worry Us appeared first on The Nation.
The post Why the Trumpists’ Calls for Dictatorship Should Worry Us appeared first on The Nation.
It’s too early to celebrate, back-to-brunch Democrats.
Liberal voters are counting Biden’s corporatist cabinet picks. But we still don’t know for sure that Trump will let them hatch. There’s still a significant chance — I would put it at 50-50 — that the “outgoing” president will engineer a coup d’état in order to remain in power.
Democratic-aligned media outlets are promulgating wishful thinking. They’re crowing about a routine, peaceful transfer of power. They’re making fun of the Trump campaign’s losses in court challenges to the election results and making light of the president’s hope that faithless electors will trigger the 12th Amendment scenario by causing Biden to fall short of 270. The mainstream pundit class points to the bureaucracy’s granting of access to Biden’s transition team and to excerpts from a recent Trump interview as evidence that he has accepted defeat. (In fact, Trump said that if the electoral college votes for Biden, they will have “made a mistake, ’cause this election was a fraud.”)
But they are ignoring human motivation.
Trump has every reason to use radical means to remain president, democracy and constitution be damned. If he leaves the White House on January 20, the former president loses executive immunity and becomes exposed to an array of fraud and corruption charges related to his businesses. The New York State charges are the most hazardous. He could well be convicted and sent to prison on those. Even if Biden were to issue a presidential pardon, a law specifically directed at Trump ensures that a federal pardon would not apply to New York’s state convictions. Trump is an old man, hardly in good health. He could spend the rest of his life in prison — unless he declares martial law and becomes America’s first dictator.
Cynics, a group I usually identify with, believe that wealthy and powerful white guys like Donald Trump are never held accountable for their crimes, much less go to prison. For Trump, that has been the case so far. But there have been exceptions. As happened to Martin Shkreli, Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein, everything indicates that Trump’s white privilege card has been revoked. The ruling classes are dying to see Trump humiliated, perp-walked, and mug-shot in a jumpsuit that matches his skin tone. The neoliberals never considered the master of crass to be one of their own. Now he is a full-fledged class traitor, our Huey Long. Populist and verbally skeptical of the militarism and job-exporting free trade agreements that line the capitalists’ Cayman accounts, Trump has proven that a sizable portion of the American public—on the right, no less!—agrees with him. The elites despise him for this. They will not save him.
Trump’s coup calculus is simple: what’s the worst-case scenario if he fails? Arrest and prison? He’ll be no worse off than if he didn’t try.
Trump’s lawsuits will fail. (He knows.) The electoral college will elect Biden.
Trump will then have five weeks to decide what to do. Await his fate at Mar-a-Lago? Trump isn’t passive, especially when he fears he’s going to lose. Fly to exile in Israel or Saudi Arabia? Netanyahu is too beholden to the U.S. to risk offending an incoming Biden Administration; Saudi Arabia is one of the most unpleasant places on earth.
Trump’s coup calculus is simple: what’s the worst-case scenario if he fails? Arrest and prison? He’ll be no worse off than if he didn’t try.
Trump has two major advantages that the usual coup plotter doesn’t. First is incumbency: he currently has his hands on the levers of power. He’s not looking to change anything; he’s trying to keep things the way they are. Second, he doesn’t have the support of the military—but he doesn’t need it. His would be a “police coup” carried out by the numerous local police departments whose unions endorsed him for reelection, alongside federalized state police and deputized paramilitary MAGA goons.
Leaders of the armed forces, the only institution that could stop Trump, would face an awful choice. If they remove the civilian head of government, even a rogue, they are carrying out a military coup. They would have to shoot at local police, many of whom are veterans. If the army were to stand down, they would be tacitly endorsing Trump’s police coup. My experience is, when people face two bad choices, they do nothing—which is why I don’t think Trump has to worry about the military.
History tells us how such a coup would go down. Newspapers will disappear, radio will go silent, television will go dark, the Internet will be turned off. Police checkpoints will spring up on city streets and along highways. After a short time, perhaps a few days, the president will inform us that it’s all for our own good, that he’s trying to protect America and democracy and everything beautiful, but that a state of emergency is necessary to preserve law and order. There will be curfews, martial law, a ban on political protests and gatherings. Communications will resume in a limited fashion. Even news media outlets that used to be critical of Trump will sing his praises.
In most other countries, a coup leader like Trump would face dogged resistance. But that usually requires socialists and communists; only a disciplined Marxist movement stands a chance at destabilizing an authoritarian regime. Fortunately for Trump, a century of ruthless oppression and right-wing propaganda has eliminated the actual left.
Trump set the stage for a coup by moving loyalists into key positions. After the election he fired the Secretary of Defense, a man notable because he refused to send the military to fight protesters on American streets, and replaced him with a toady. The Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence also got the axe. He did the same to the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at Homeland Security. The directors of the CIA and FBI reportedly have targets on their backs as well. Wishful-thinking Democrats speculate that the firings are mere retribution by a spiteful Trump. If so, it’s interesting that Trump’s revenge is limited to key national security figures. Didn’t anyone in the Department of Agriculture ever piss him off?
“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free,” counsels Sun Tzu. “Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” The powers that be are ignoring this advice. If they were wise, they would approach Trump with a deal: go quietly, return to your real estate business, and you won’t be prosecuted. No more rallies. No more political campaigns.
Instead they have turned him into a cornered rat. Because the authorities are hell-bent on humiliating and destroying a sitting president, the American republic is about to go through one of its most dangerous months in history.
Trump might resign himself to months and years of court hearings, trials, prison for him and his family. But I wouldn’t count on it.
Trump is the same BS artist as always, but with no power to enforce his lies, he’s becoming a shabby punchline
To call these hearings embarrassing sadly understates things. A travesty really doesn’t do justice either to the spectacle the Trump campaign is subjecting the nation to right now.
Source: Washington Post
Weeks after Melissa Carone was tapped by the Trump campaign as a star witness in Michigan, little appeared to be going as planned with the contract IT worker’s testimony — an unverified series of claims about ballot fraud at Detroit’s vote-counting center.
In interviews with conservative-leaning media last month, her offbeat tale suggesting ballots were being smuggled inside food vans seemed to baffle even Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. Two days later, a Wayne County judge ruled that her allegations “simply are not credible.”
Yet, there she was in front of a Michigan House panel on Wednesday, dressing down a Republican lawmaker as she loudly insisted, without proof, that tens of thousands of votes had been counted twice. At one point, she was audibly shushed by Trump campaign attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“I know what I saw,” Carone told state Rep. Steven Johnson (R), raising her eyebrows sharply. “And I signed something saying if I’m wrong, I can go to prison. Did you?”
Flynn shared a statement from a fringe group warning of imminent shooting war if Trump does not invoke martial law
Half of the program’s allocated $522 billion in loans went to only 5% of recipients
Facebook and Twitter have placed warnings on a 46-minute video statement released by Donald Trump on Wednesday, in which the president repeats baseless claims of voter fraud in November’s election, which he lost to Joe Biden.
If you can, carve out some time on Saturday to watch the doings in Georgia. A whole barnload of Trump chickens are winging their way home. If they roost just right, Mitch McConnell could lose majority control of the Senate in January, and he and his brigade of calculating Republican lickspittles will only have themselves to blame.
It is, of course, a long shot. Incumbent GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are locked in a dual runoff in Georgia against Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. The vote is slated for January 5. Thanks to a monumental grassroots effort by progressive activists like Stacey Abrams, Georgia’s presidential vote flipped to the Democrats for the first time since Bill Clinton pulled it off in 1992. Now all of that energy is focused on these runoffs, and the state has become a fulcrum point at a moment freighted with COVID, climate crisis and economic calamity.
Democrats have not fared well in Georgia runoffs over the years. Adding to the challenge, they must win both contests in order to flip control of the Senate. The stakes are enormous; with a friendly House and Senate, Joe Biden could embark upon a truly ambitious slate of policies and clean the Augean stables of the Trumpian filth that has piled up over the last four years. It would be a catastrophic rebuke to Trump, McConnell and the entire GOP to lose these seats, and more importantly, to lose control of the ruinous agenda McConnell has pursued with venomous efficiency for almost 15 years.
In an irony so luxurious I want to roll in it like a dog, Republicans are becoming increasingly terrified that they will lose those seats, and all because of Donald Trump. The soon-to-be ex-president has handled his loss to Biden about as well as a spoiled child who got nothing but broccoli for Christmas — the tree is on fire, the bulbs are all smashed and the screaming just will not stop.
At the core of Trump’s ceaseless tirade is the repeatedly debunked claim that the entire election was rigged against him by a network of conspirators that includes (no really) Bill Barr’s FBI and Justice Department, the Republican governor of Georgia, the nation of Germany and the ghost of Hugo Chavez. He and his people have been so adamant and persistent in promoting this bag of nonsense that swaths of his devoted supporters have come to embrace these theories, if you’ll pardon the sacrilege, as the gospel truth.
But wait: It gets better. A goodly portion of that devoted base, after taking to heart Trump’s claims of a rigged vote, have decided Perdue and Loeffler have been less than devoted to the cause of flipping the election away from Biden, and may actually be complicit in Trump’s defeat. Since they already believe the vote in Georgia is clearly rigged anyway (see: Dem flip back in November), members of Trump’s base are actively calling for a conservative voter boycott of the January 5 runoff.
When confronted by one of his beloved adulation mobs containing supporters who want to boycott the vote in January, will Trump be able to restrain himself?
“Driven by Trump’s insistence that Georgia’s elections are indelibly rife with fraud, conspiratorial MAGA figures are calling for a boycott of the two Senate runoff races, slated for Jan. 5, that will determine which party controls the upper chamber,” reports Politico. “Their reason: The two GOP candidates, Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, are not only insufficiently pro-Trump, they may be complicit in Georgia’s electoral fraud.”
Over the last several days, Trump has done zero favors for his fellow Republicans in the matter of Georgia. He denounced Georgia’s uber-Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for being “hapless” after Kemp followed the law to the letter and certified Biden’s victory in that state. Trump labeled Georgia’s uber-Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger an “enemy of the people,” and now Raffensperger has bodyguards.
… and now, Trump is slated to visit Georgia on Saturday so he can “help” his fellow Republicans in these runoffs. What will he say when he meets with Kemp and Raffensperger? When confronted by one of his beloved adulation mobs containing supporters who want to boycott the vote in January, will Trump be able to restrain himself? Or will he, overtly or otherwise, bless their endeavors to avoid saying anything that disrupts his ersatz narrative of total victory?
There’s a real possibility that Trump the arsonist could once again go for the kerosene and the matches, if only to hear the cheers as the flames burn his party to the ground. Any network coverage of his visit there this weekend is appointment television.
“The Trump wing of the Republican Party was always at risk of detaching from the party establishment,” notes The Washington Post. “Trump is such a singular figure in U.S. politics, few if any can emulate him. He’s just willing to say things that get certain voters riled up that other politicians won’t. That’s the crux of the problem Georgia Republicans face.”
It’s not just the Georgia Republicans, either. Trump’s defeat has broken the GOP in half, with one side represented by Trump, his base, and all the shabby Republicans too afraid to cross them. On the other side are McConnell and his cohort of establishment Republicans who watch now with growing dread as the beast they created, coddled and fed now threatens to lay waste to all their works.
This civil war is also playing out in the conservative media. One of Trump’s most visited targets of late has been Fox News, a network that hauled a Pacific Ocean of water for Trump over the years. Fox inspired Trump’s undying wrath when it put Arizona in Biden’s corner on election night. The network since has, very slowly, come to acknowledge Biden’s eventual presidency.
The Trump believers have taken his cue and shunned Fox News by massive numbers, flocking instead to far-right fringe networks like One America News and Newsmax TV, where Trump’s version of election reality is promoted with inspired vigor. After all, there’s money to be made off of people who will believe anything.
Fear of the ultimate consequences from this deliberately inflicted mayhem was given voice by yet another Georgia official. Gabriel Sterling, the voting system implementation manager for the state of Georgia, begged Trump and his people to stop tearing up the landscape before someone truly and irrevocably gets hurt. “This has to stop,” Sterling said on Tuesday. “Someone is going to get hurt. Someone is going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed. And it’s not right. It’s not right.”
There is no way to say how this will all play out, and betting odds still favor the GOP to win at least one of those Georgia runoffs. Trump will make that easier or harder on Saturday. I will say this much, however: If Trump’s poor-loser shenanigans lead to a double-barreled GOP defeat in Georgia, all forms of hell are going to break loose within that party.
In the interim, the next time you see a “Dems in Disarray” news report because progressive House members have a legitimate beef with Biden’s cabinet appointments, do what I do: Look to the mayhem on the right side of the aisle, smile and shake your head. “Disarray,” clearly, is also in the eye of the beholder.
For his incoming economic team, President-elect Joe Biden has picked several people associated with the investment giant BlackRock, which has been called “the fourth branch of government.” This includes his choice of Brian Deese, a former adviser to Barack Obama, to be his director of the National Economic Council. Deese was the global head of sustainable investing for BlackRock, which is the world’s largest asset manager, with over $7 trillion in its portfolio. This comes as progressives are demanding a Cabinet free of Wall Street influence. “BlackRock has very smartly cultivated its reputation as a sort of ‘good guy’ on Wall Street” that is contradicted by their conduct, notes Kate Aronoff, staff writer at The New Republic. “Time after time, they have sought to shirk regulation and — in the last year especially, and while Brian Deese has been there — really greenwashed their image.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to look at look at President-elect Joe Biden’s choice of Brian Deese, the former adviser to Barack Obama, to be the director of the National Economic Council. Deese was not present on the stage Tuesday when Biden announced his economic nominees. After leaving the White House, he became global head of sustainable investing at the investment giant BlackRock. This is Deese speaking to Christiane Amanpour earlier this year about BlackRock’s climate plan.
BRIAN DEESE: The most important thing to identify is not necessarily are you going to divest from entire sectors or segments, but, instead, where are those companies and where are those business models that are most prepared for this transition. And so, we spend a lot of time asking the question, not necessarily are you going to exit the entire oil and gas industry or all utilities globally, but, instead, within those sectors, which are the companies that are the most prepared, that are investing the most in the clean technologies of the future, and which of those companies are less prepared.
AMY GOODMAN: Deputy treasury secretary nominee Wally Adeyemo also has ties to BlackRock. He’s the former chief of staff to BlackRock’s chief executive, Larry Fink.
In addition to Briahna Joy Gray, I want to bring in Kate Aronoff. She is a staff writer at The New Republic. Her latest piece, just out, “The Problem with Putting a BlackRock Alum in Charge of Greening the Economy,” it follows up on her story in June that asked “Is BlackRock the New Vampire Squid?” She’s the co-author of A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal.
Kate, if you can talk about the choice of Brian Deese?
KATE ARONOFF: Sure. Thanks for having me.
So, Brian Deese has spent a lot of time in Washington and has spent a lot of time at BlackRock, right? So, a lot of the sort of talk about Brian Deese’s nomination in the last couple of days, since sort of rumors came out about him being appointed to NEC, has focused on that he’s a good person, that he spent time in the Obama administration working on things like the Paris Agreement and conservation work. And I think, like many of the progressives who have put a real question about Brian Deese’s record out there — don’t necessarily think that’s enough — right? — for someone to serve on one of the most important economic bodies in the world, right?
So, BlackRock has very smartly cultivated its reputation as a sort of “good guy” on Wall Street, right? They’re not an investment bank. They just handle the money of retirees. They’re an asset manager. And they have very cannily cultivated this reputation and an enormous amount of unaccountable power. Time after time, they have sought to shirk regulation and — in the last year especially, and while Brian Deese has been there — really greenwashed their image, so put out this sort of idea that BlackRock is taking the climate crisis seriously, all the while continuing to invest in fossil fuels at an enormous rate.
So, you know, I think that it doesn’t necessarily matter so much whether Brian Deese is personally a good person. You know, he may well be, right? I don’t know. I don’t know Brian Deese personally. But I think it deserves looking at both BlackRock’s ambitions, the kind of power they’re trying to amass in government, both here and in the European Union, which maybe we can talk about, and also Brian Deese’s own record, which is not sterling, right?
Like I said, he’s worked more on climate issues for BlackRock now than he ever did for the Obama administration, and was, by all accounts, just a very stalwart defender of business as usual in the Obama administration. We’ve seen nothing really to suggest that he has changed — right? — that he doesn’t support all of the above, what he did in the Obama administration, really going to bat for Arctic drilling, praising the fact that oil production had been expanded under Obama’s tenure. So I think there’s just not enough evidence out there to think that Brian Deese’s own personal character can overcome the sort of danger of putting one of the largest companies in the world in charge of a very, very important economic body in the U.S.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Kate, specifically to that point of one of the largest financial companies in the world, most people are not familiar with BlackRock. They certainly are familiar with Citigroup or Goldman Sachs or Chase. Could you talk a little bit about the extent of BlackRock’s financial prowess around the world? And also if you could comment about the choice of John Kerry as a climate envoy by Joe Biden?
KATE ARONOFF: Sure. So, to talk about BlackRock a little bit, they control $7 trillion worth of assets. And that has grown enormously in the last 10 years. So, prior to the Great Recession, when interest rates were a bit higher, sort of big institutional investors like pension funds would put their money into sort of safe assets, like Treasury bonds, which offer reliable returns, right? And so, as interest rates have gone down as a response to the crisis of the financial crisis, that has become a less attractive option, and so you have these big institutional investors who are seeking reliable returns, right? And so, the products that BlackRock offers, like other asset managers, have become very attractive, and particularly these passive funds which are managed by algorithms and which, notably, are not subject to the sort of sustainability screens that Brian Deese has spent his last four years at BlackRock talking about.
So, these are enormously powerful sort of bodies. Institutional investors, generally — sorry, these big asset managers, generally, have become sort of bigger than anyone would have imagined. And BlackRock, in particular, is a sort of monopoly provider of risk management software, through this thing called Aladdin, to central banks around the world. People might also know that they managed the debt-buying programs that the Fed has run, both in the last financial crisis and in the most recent recession.
And so, they have really tried to just accumulate an enormous amount of power and, by all accounts, are very much striving to be a fourth branch of government, which has included hiring Obama-era alumni to create a sort of positive reputation among Democrats especially, and with the full knowledge that these people might get hired back, which, you know, has borne out in picks for — Biden’s pick for Treasury and for the National Economic Council. So I think there’s just a lot of questions, that I have been sort of concerned to see folks in the climate world coming to Brian Deese’s defense without really thinking about what the problem with putting BlackRock in the National Economic Council means.
And just briefly on this, I mean, we’ve seen this before, right? We’ve seen what putting allies of Wall Street into important economic posts has meant, not just for the country — right? — not just in putting forth a much too small stimulus like Larry Summers pushed for in 2008, when he was head of — incoming head of the National Economic Council, but electorally, right? Democrats lost in a blowout in 2010 and continued to lose every branch of government, because they pursued austerity. They pursued the sort of fiscal discipline that Brian Deese himself preached when he was the deputy and then acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. So, this is a dangerous strategy, just sort of self-evidently, in Democrats’ own self-interest, right?
So, you know, that’s — I’ll talk a little bit about John Kerry now. So, he was appointed to head this new climate envoy on the National Security Council. I think a lot of climate activists can rightly see this as a win, that there is a Cabinet-level post for climate, right? That is nothing to sort of take for granted. It’s a huge step forward in terms of how seriously this administration is at least claiming to take the climate crisis.
But again, I think there’s a lot of questions remaining about whether John Kerry has changed his views since the Obama administration, where he was a very vocal defender of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have opened up the U.S. to challenges from investor-state dispute settlements, that allow corporations to sue governments for things like environmental and climate protections. He has consistently preached that climate change is primarily a national security threat, which I think, combined with the position of his envoy post and the rest of Biden’s foreign policy team, who are, by all accounts, really hawks on foreign policy, I think, you know, sets up maybe seeing this crisis not as a threat to humanity, but as a threat to U.S. military assets — right? — which I think is a sort of dangerous way to view this problem.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you also comment on Cedric Richmond, the Louisiana congressmember, former Congressional Black Caucus chair, that Biden has named to lead the White House Office on Public Engagement? The Sunrise Movement called the move a “betrayal,” adding Richmond has, quote, “taken more donations from the fossil fuel industry during his Congressional career than nearly any other Democrat, cozied up to Big Oil and Gas, and stayed silent and ignored meeting with organizations in his own community while they suffered from toxic pollution and sea-level rise.” If you can talk about BlackRock, as well as the Cedric Richmond appointment and the whole issue of who is making up this Cabinet? What does this say to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, that feels that they threw in their lot wholeheartedly and pushed hard for the Biden-Harris ticket and are wondering what kind of sway they have at this point?
KATE ARONOFF: Yeah, I think, you know, the statement from Sunrise about Cedric Richmond is pretty spot on, I would say. So, he represents a part of the country known as Cancer Alley in Louisiana, which has just been inundated by pollution from chemicals companies and the petrochemicals industry and oil companies, and has routinely just ignored concerns from his constituents about the fact that many, many of their neighbors are coming down with cancer, that they didn’t need to have, because these companies are not being held accountable for polluting these communities.
And so, I think it’s a real — it’s a real thumb of the nose to the folks who worked to elect Joe Biden, right? Young people made a lot of phone calls for Joe Biden. They knocked doors for Joe Biden. Progressives, you know, in places like Ilhan Omar’s district and Rashida Tlaib’s district, really fought to deliver him key states. And with appointments like Brian Deese and like Cedric Richmond, you know, they’re not getting anything for their buck, right? I mean, they really went to bat for a candidate who was not their choice, who was not the person they wanted to see in the White House, and yet knew the stakes of this election, knew that it was important to have a Democrat and get Donald Trump out of office. And they’re just not really — they’re not really seeing any gift from the Biden administration.
I think that’s disappointing, you know, for the fact that we have a giant climate crisis, which I am personally not so confident that Biden’s picks so far will take on at the scale that that crisis desires, but also that — you know, why would you so actively try to turn off what is going to be the biggest part of the Democratic base in the coming years, right? If you look back to the history of the Democratic Party, when was the party winning big majorities? When was it controlling Congress for decades on end? It was after the New Deal, when it delivered for people, when it built new coalitions, when it sought to actually expand its base — certainly not when it tried to target tiny, tiny slivers of suburban white women to win them over with the most sort of poll-tested talking points they could find, right?
I think there’s a lot of — just a big lack of self-reflection from people who have been doing politics the same way for 20 years, at a time when the Democratic Party has really faced a crisis in terms of who its base is, moving forward. And so, I think it’s concerning for all those reasons. And, you know, I would like Democrats to control the Senate, if they don’t win these runoff elections. I would like strong Democratic majorities to push through climate action. And I’m just not sure that that is really the goal that Joe Biden is chasing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hello, Kate. If I can, I just wanted to ask Briahna, in the few seconds we have left — Briahna, can you give us a sense whether you believe that there’s still a role for Bernie Sanders in a Biden administration?
BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: [inaudible] or influence Bernie Sanders —
AMY GOODMAN: Briahna, could you start again?
BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: Yeah. It’s difficult to say that even if there were a role, that Bernie Sanders could have any significant influence, given the overwhelming gestalt of the picks so far and what Joe Biden has very firmly committed to throughout his campaign, which is that nothing will fundamentally change. And it’s not clear to me that Bernie will have more leverage or influence within Biden’s administration than he would as a relative outsider in the Senate.
Moreover, it seems, by the — you know, every indication is that Joe Biden doesn’t have any interest in giving anything over to the left, offering anything to the left. You see olive branches being extended to Republicans, Cindy McCain. You know, we all saw the extent to which Republicans were given a platform at the national convention. And I think that that’s a trend we should expect to continue, that this isn’t an administration that’s particularly interested in offering much to the base of the Democratic Party.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. Of course, these conversations will continue. Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders 2020, co-host of Bad Faith podcast and contributing editor to Current Affairs. And thanks to Kate Aronoff, staff writer at The New Republic, co-author of A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal. We’ll link to your latest piece in The New Republic.
When we come back, The Dead Are Arising: The Life of Malcolm X. We’ll look at the new National Book Award-winning biography. Stay with us.