Challenging Trump’s anti-democratic vision

Bob Sheak, May 8, 2024

The anti-democratic thrust of Trump’s views, widely endorsed by Republicans, is continuously being modified. However, it is clear that if he is elected in November 2024, he wants to institute reforms that will end American liberal democracy, replace it with an illiberal political order, with the president in command, all the while looking for ways to diminish or eliminate the influence of his critics and Democrats.

Robert Kagan analyzes this threat in his book, Rebellion: How Antiliberalism IS Tearing America Apart – Again. In effect, Trump wants the Republican Party to win absolute control, which would mean control by a “minority” of the voting population, particularly by the rich and powerful. Ari  Berman delves into this issue in his new book titled “Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People – and the Fight to Resist It.”

Autocratic confirmation

Trump also looks abroad for confirmations of his views, for example from authoritarian leaders in Russia and Hungary. His friendly relations with Putin are well known. Kate Sullivan gives some examples of the relationship (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html).

“As president, Trump privately threatened multiple times to withdraw the United States from NATO, according to The New York Times. Trump has described NATO as ‘obsolete’ and has aligned himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who wants to weaken the alliance. Trump has long praised Putin and went as far as to side with the Russian leader over the US intelligence community over Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.”

Trump as messiah

Trump welcomes support for his power bid from wherever it comes. For example, he seems to welcome being thought of as a messiah, however outlandish the notion, because it helps to boost his ego and because it reflects support for him among Christian Nationalists, his most numerous constituency. (See Tim Alberta’s book, The Kingdom, The Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism).

David French analyzes this fabrication and contends obviously that Trump is no savior and that a “significant part of American Christianity is spiraling out of control” (https://nytimes.com/2024/03/31/opinion/donald-trump-dune-savior.html). Here’s some of what he writes.

“The signs are everywhere. First, there’s the behavior of the savior himself, Donald Trump. On Monday of Holy Week, he compared himself to Jesus Christ, posting on Truth Social that he received a ‘beautiful’ note from a supporter saying that it was ironic’ that ‘Christ walked through his greatest persecution the very week they are trying to steal your property from you.’

“On Tuesday, he took to Truth Social to sell a $60 ‘God Bless the USA Bible’ (the ‘only Bible endorsed by President Trump’), an edition of the King James Bible that also includes America’s founding documents. ‘Christians are under siege,’ he said. The Judeo-Christian foundation of America is ‘under attack,’ Trump claimed, before declaring a new variant on an old theme: ‘We must make America pray again.’

“Two weeks ago, Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, told a Christian gathering that Democrats ‘want full and complete destruction of the United States of America.’ Kirk is a powerful Trump ally. He has millions of followers on social media and is hoping to raise more than $100 million in 2024 to help mobilize voters for Trump.

“‘I do not think you can be a Christian and vote Democrat,’ Kirk said, and ‘if you vote Democrat as a Christian, you can no longer call yourself a Christian.’”

French continues.

“All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of so-called prophetic utterances that place Trump at the center of God’s plan to save America. According to these prophecies, Trump is God’s choice to lead America out of spiritual darkness, to save it from decline and despair. In this formulation, to oppose Trump is to stand against the will of God.

“There are Trump prophecy books and a Trump prophecy movie. The prophecies can be very strange. The prophet will speak as though God talked to him or her directly. In this widely watched video, for example, the prophet says, ‘Donald Trump will be in power once more’ and ‘he will reign again; it’s only a matter of time.’ In this prophecy, the prophet says there is ‘actually a scripture appointed for the day’ that Trump was born. As he explains the prophecy, the crowd applauds; its belief is palpable.”

There is a “method” underlying this belief in Trump’s spiritual lordship. French writes: “The MAGA method is clear. First, it whips up its people into a religious frenzy. It lies to convince them that the Democrats are an existential threat to the country and the church. It tells worried Christians that the fate of the nation is at stake. Then, just as it builds up the danger from the Democrats, it constructs an idol of Trump, declaring his divine purpose and spreading the prophecies of his coming return. He is to be the instrument of divine vengeance against his foes, and his frenzied foot soldiers are eager to carry out his will. They march eagerly to culture war, flying the flag of the House of Trump.”

French points out that Trump’s religiosity is hardly in the authentic Christian tradition. “Jesus was emphatic. In Matthew 25, Jesus said he would know his followers as people who served: ‘I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me; I was in prison and you visited me.’ And how do we serve Jesus in that way? Christ’s answer was clear: ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”

The fuller agenda

Certainly, there is much more to Trump’s anti-democratic and politically and existentially threatening agenda. Here are eleven examples.

  • believes he cannot be defeated in upcoming 2024 presidential election, unless the election is “rigged”
  • encourages the maximum production and consumption of fossil fuels, despite the steady rise of global warming
  • claims to be a job creator, though his record here is weak
  • appoints sycophants to his cabinet and staff, and eliminate civil service protections for thousands of executive-branch workers
  • pursues a draconian migration policy, including the detention and removal of millions of undocumented migrants living in the U.S. carried out with military troops – and extends the wall on the southern border
  • facilitates efforts to make voting more difficult, especially for lower-income and black and Latino Americans
  • keeps taxes low for corporations and the super-wealthy and support a regime of deregulation and privatization
  • diminishes the already fragile social safety net
  • supports efforts by the states to virtually end legal access to reproductive health care and abortion
  • encourages easy access to gun ownership
  • will promote violence against opponents when necessary to maintain social order

—————

#1 – The Big Lie

Trump has claimed over and over again that Biden’s presidential victory in 2020 was based on massive election fraud. 

Trump remains the leader of the Republican Party. He unceasingly claims that he won the 2020 presidential election, despite the overwhelming evidence that he did not (e.g., The January 6 Report by the House January 6th Committee). The evidence. “In total, the Trump Campaign and allies of President Trump filed 62 separate lawsuits between November 4, 2020, and January 6, 2021, calling into question or seeking to overturn the election results. Out of 62 cases, only one case results in a victory for the President Trump or his allies, which affected relatively few votes, did not vindicate any underlying claims of fraud, and would not have changed the outcome in Pennsylvania.” Indeed, “In every state in which claims were brought, one or more judges specifically explained as part of the dismissal orders that they had evaluated the plaintiffs’ allegations or supposed proof of widespread election fraud or other irregularities, and found the claims to be entirely unconvincing” (p. 210).

The Big Lie is widely accepted by Republicans

Most Republicans in the U.S. Congress accept or go along with this false claim, as reflected in the vote on choosing a Speaker taken by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The litmus test for House Republicans was that a Speaker should be someone who accepts Trump’s lies about winning the 2020 presidential election and his right-wing agenda. Marc Elias provides some information on the new Speaker Mike Johnson’s views and record (https://democracydocket.com/opinion/a-big-lie-ring-leader-becomes-speaker-of-the-house). The article was published on Oct. 30, 2023.

“The newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (La.) is no ordinary Republican election denier. He was a ringleader in one of the most dangerous efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He used his position as a lawyer and member of Congress to legitimize the fringe legal theory underpinning the ‘Big Lie.’ Other than former President Donald Trump, he is arguably the most culpable federal elected official in what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021.

Johnson “combines MAGA Republicanism with Christian nationalism. Shortly after becoming speaker, Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that anyone looking to understand his world view should ‘go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it.’ 

“When it comes to issues of democracy, Johnson is an avid vote suppressor and an accomplished election denier. He is best thought of as a cross between Jim Jordan and John Eastman.”

#2 – A retrograde climate/environmental policy

One of the most disturbing aspects of Trump’s discourse is his dismissal of the indisputable evidence on the climate crisis.

Lisa Friedman identifies “Five Major Climate Policies Trump Would Probably Reverse if Elected” (https://nytimes.com/2024/04/26/climate/climate-politics-trump-would-reverse.html).

1. Coal and Gas Power Plants

“The fossil-fuel-burning plants that keep our lights on or power our heat and air conditioning are responsible for a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the United States. Reducing them is key to Mr. Biden’s plan to tackle climate change.” For example, “Environmental Protection Agency regulations finalized on Thursday would force coal plants to either deploy technology to capture virtually all their emissions, or shut down. New gas plants constructed in the U.S. also would have to meet strict emissions standards.”

“Mr. Trump has deployed a mixture of truth and falsehoods when describing this policy. He has said it will force coal plants to shut down, which is likely accurate. He also said it will force gas plants to close, which is not true. And he has said that renewable energy cannot keep the lights on, also untrue.

“If elected, Mr. Trump said he will reverse the regulation on coal-burning electricity and ‘green-light the construction of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of brand-new, beautiful power plants that actually work.’”

2. Automobile Emissions Standards

“Mr. Biden has imposed limits on pollution from automobile tailpipes, rules designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

“Mr. Trump has said those regulations will lead to a ‘blood bath’ in the U.S. economy, ‘kill” the auto industry and trigger an ‘assassination’ of jobs. He has pledged to reverse them.”

3. The Inflation Reduction Act

President Biden signed into law in 2022 the nation’s largest investment in fighting climate change. “It contains more than $370 billion in tax credits over 10 years to help shift the U.S. toward cleaner forms of energy, offering incentives to companies to make electric vehicles, batteries and to consumers to buy those vehicles, switch to solar energy and buy things like electric heat pumps to heat and cool their homes.

“Mr. Trump, who has called the I.R.A. ‘the biggest tax hike in history,’ is widely expected to try to gut much of the law.

“Incentives for people to buy electric vehicles, which Mr. Trump has called ‘one of the dumbest’ decisions he’s heard, would certainly be on the chopping block, Republicans said. So would measures to support businesses that install electric-vehicle charging stations.

“Tax credits for solar- and wind-power, could be in the cross hairs of his administration, as could incentives for consumers to buy heat pumps or make their homes more energy efficient.”

4. Oil and Gas Drilling

“If he wins a second term, Mr. Trump has promised to ‘unleash domestic energy production like never before.’ Primarily he is talking about coal, oil and gas, the three main fossil fuels.”

“Mr. Trump has promised to immediately lift that pause and greenlight pipelines and other energy projects.

“‘We’re going to drill, baby, drill, right away,’ Mr. Trump told supporters in January.” As president, Trump is expected to “revive drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the country’s premiere wildlife sanctuary. Mr. Biden canceled seven oil leases in the refuge last year.”

5. Global Climate Negotiations

“As president, Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement, a 2015 accord in which all nations agreed to cut their greenhouse gases to keep global warming within relatively safe limits.

“Mr. Biden returned the U.S. to the global deal on his first day in office and has pledged to cut U.S. emissions roughly in half this decade, and to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere before 2050.

“Mr. Trump’s likely policies would add four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, according to a study by Carbon Brief, a climate analysis site.

“Many foreign leaders felt that the four-year absence of the world’s superpower during the Trump administration was a setback. They fear another American withdrawal would delay progress at a time when time is running short to avert the most catastrophic impacts from global warming.”

#3 – Hardly a big job creator

Lawrence Wittner analyzes Trump’s “empty promises on jobs” (https://counterpunch.org/2024/05/02/donald-trumps-empty-promises-on-jobs).

Wittner reminds us that in mid-2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States and declared that he would “be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”

“With Trump’s election, however, just the opposite occurred.  During the four years of Trump’s presidency, the United States lost 2.7 million jobs.  As a result, he was the only president since 1939, when the U.S. government began compiling such employment statistics, to preside over a net loss of jobs.

“Indeed, when it came to job creation, Trump was vastly outperformed by the other presidents.  Bill Clinton oversaw the biggest gain, 23 million additional jobs, followed by Ronald Reagan (16 million), Joe Biden (14 million), and Lyndon Johnson (12 million)―all the way down to George W. Bush (1.4 million).  During the presidency of Barack Obama, Trump’s much-reviled predecessor, the United States added 11.6 million jobs.

Trump’s defenders point to the disruptive effect the Covid-19 pandemic had on the American economy.  Although the disease crisis certainly undermined employment during his presidency, it’s also true that his denial and mismanagement of the public health emergency deepened its human and economic impact in the United States.  Furthermore, even before the pandemic hit, job creation during the Trump presidency was relatively weak.  During Trump’s first 31 months in office, employment growth in the United States averaged 176,000 jobs per month.  During Biden’s first 31 months in office, employment growth averaged 433,000 jobs per month.”

#4 – Plans to appoint sycophants and radical right experts to his cabinet and staff, and eliminate civil service protections for thousands of executive-branch workers

Bob OrtegaKyung LahAllison Gordon and Nelli Black, report in-depth on Trump’s plan in a second term to purge the executive branch of workers who are not expressly committed to him (https://cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/trump-federal-workers-2nd-term-invs/index.html). Here’s some of what they write.

“At one campaign rally after another, former President Donald Trump whips his supporters into raucous cheers with a promise of what’s to come if he’s given another term in office: ‘We will demolish the deep state.’

“In essence, it’s a declaration of war on the federal government—a vow to transform its size and scope and make it more beholden to Trump’s whims and worldview.

“The former president’s statements, policy blueprints laid out by top officials in his first administration and interviews with allies show that Trump is poised to double down in a second term on executive orders that faltered, or those he was blocked from carrying out the first time around.

“Trump seeks to sweep away civil service protections that have been in place for more than 140 years. He has said he’d make ‘every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States’ at will. Even though more than 85 percent of federal employees already work outside the DC area, Trump says he would ‘drain the swamp’ and move as many as 100,000 positions out of Washington. His plans would eliminate or dismantle entire departments.”

“While Trump’s plans are embraced by his supporters, policy experts warn that they would hollow out and politicize the federal workforce, force out many of the most experienced and knowledgeable employees, and open the door to corruption and a spoils system of political patronage.”

“But if, as promised, Trump were to change thousands of civil service jobs into politically appointed positions at the start of a second term, huge numbers of federal workers could face being fired unless they put loyalty to Trump ahead of serving the public interest, warn policy experts.”

Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, told CNN making vast numbers of jobs subject to appointment based on political affiliation would amount to ‘absolutely the biggest change in the American public sector’ since a merit-based civil service was created in 1883.

“One of the architects of that plan for a Trump second term said as much in a video last year for the Heritage Foundation. ‘It’s going to be groundbreaking,’ said Russell Vought, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump. He declined interview requests from CNN.”

“Vought focused on a plan he drafted to reissue Trump’s 2020 executive order, known as Schedule F. It would reclassify as political appointees any federal workers deemed to have influence on policy. Reissuing Schedule F is part of a roadmap, known as Project 2025, drafted for a second Trump term by scores of conservative groups and published by the Heritage Foundation.”

“Ostensibly, a reissued Schedule F would affect only policy-making positions. But documents obtained by the National Treasury Employees Union and shared with CNN show that when Vought ran OMB under Trump, his list of positions to be reclassified under Schedule F included administrative assistants, office managers, IT workers and many other less senior positions.

NTEU President Doreen Greenwald told reporters at the union’s annual legislative conference that it estimated more than 50,000 workers would have been affected across all federal agencies. She said the OMB documents ‘stretched the definition of confidential or policy positions to the point of absurdity.’”

“‘We will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them,’ Trump said in a video last year. ‘The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled so that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians, or the left’s political enemies.’

Project 2025’s blueprint envisions dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; disarming the Environmental Protection Agency by loosening or eliminating emissions and climate-change regulations; eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce in their entirety; and eliminating the independence of various commissions, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.”

#5 – Trump Again Vows Mass Deportations and Won’t Rule Out Political Violence

Michael Gold writes on this issue

(https://nytimes.com/2024/04/30/us/politics/trump-time-migrants-election.html).

“Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Former President Donald J. Trump told Time magazine in an interview published Tuesday morning that if elected in November, he would deploy the U.S. military to detain and deport migrants, hedged on the possibility of political violence after the 2024 election and said he would permit states to decide whether to prosecute those who violate abortion bans.”

“At one point, Mr. Trump told Time that he would be willing to deploy the military as part of an extreme deportation operation he has said he plans to conduct if elected, and that he would be willing to bypass a law that prohibits using American troops against civilians.

“‘Well, these aren’t civilians,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country.”

Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., “Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people,” Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, “Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in.”

#6 – Facilitate efforts to make voting more difficult, especially for lower-income and black and Latino Americans

Trump and his allies and followers want to advance the interests of white Christian supremacists. Ari Berman refers to the rationale in his book Minority Rule. He writes:

“To entrench and hold onto power, shrinking conservative white minority is relentlessly exploiting the undemocratic feature of America’s political institutions while doubling down on a wide variety of antidemocratic tactics, such as voter suppression, election subversion, dark money, legislative power grabs, immigration restrictions, census manipulation, and the whitewashing of history” (p. 9).

#7 – Tax policy for the rich

Jake Johnson, writes on how tax rates for big corporations fell by nearly half after Trump cuts and, if re-elected, Trump plans to extend the cuts (https://commondreams.org/news/itep-trump-tax-law).

Johnson writes: “Large, profitable U.S. corporations have seen their effective tax rates fall by more than 40% since Republicans and their presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, Donald Trump, rammed through an unpopular law that they want to preserve and extend.

“According to a new report published Thursday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the tax rates paid by big and consistently profitable corporations dropped from 22% to 12.8% after the enactment of Trump’s tax law, which slashed the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.”

“ITEP’s analysis examines 296 Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies that were consistently profitable between 2013 and 2021. Even as the companies’ combined profits surged by 44%, they ‘paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law,’ according to ITEP.”

#8 – Diminish the already fragile social safety net

Trump and the Republicans want to limit the reach of Social Security and Medicare. Jessica Corbett writes that these programs must be defended. (https://commondreams.org/news/social-security-medicare). The article was published on May 6, 2024.

Corbett points out that these programs are financially viable for another 10 years at least due to the robust economy and high rates of employment. But Trump and the Republicans are attacking them and want to reduce benefits and access.

Corbett refers to the annual trustee reports that show that, contrary to right-wing criticisms, “Social Security is projected to be fully funded until 2035, a year later than previously thought, while Medicare is expected to be fully funded until 2036, five years beyond the earlier projection.” Nevertheless, “Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November, ‘proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office, he’s said repeatedly he would cut them, his allies openly plan to target them, and just this weekend he dismissed them as bribes,’ noted James Singer, a spokesperson for the Democrat’s campaign.

“‘Let’s be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he’ll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him,’ Singer warned. ‘President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won’t.’”

Corbett continues.

“Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that ‘current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress.’

“Fiesta highlighted that Biden’s latest budget ‘calls for strengthening’ the programs whereas Trump recently said that ‘there is a lot you can do… in terms of cutting’ them and ‘the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well.’”

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that “Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983.”

According to Richtman:

Democrats in Congress “strongly support revenue-side solutions that would bring more money into the trust fund by demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered legislation that would do just that—by maintaining the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well—and dedicating some of high earners’ investment income to Social Security.”

“‘The Social Security 2100 Act is co-sponsored by nearly 200 House Democrats and would improve benefits across the board while extending solvency until 2066, while Donald Trump and House Republicans continue their calls to slash Americans’ hard-earned benefits!’ Larson said.”

“Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in history, and ensuring its solvency for future generations has been one of my top priorities in Congress,” Boyle said Monday, promoting the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, his bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “Unfortunately, while Democrats and President Biden want to protect Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have made clear they want to tear them down.”

#9 – Support efforts by the states to virtually end legal access to reproductive health care and abortion

The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in June 2022, giving the anti-abortion movement added vigor and justification to fight for further restrictions on access to abortion. The ruling allows states decide on whether to outright ban abortion. Anti-abortion activists want more, a national ban on abortion. Trump wants the individual states to decide, or so he says. But he also wants to placate the right-wing evangelicals, a crucial constituency, who would like to eliminate or severely limit access to abortion and have Trump, if president, issue a ban on abortion.

Public opinion is opposed to abortion bans

The anti-abortion movement has momentum in many states, but public opinion today is on the other side, supporting “choice.” Steven Shepard looks at some of the evidence (https://politico.com/news/2023/04/08/republican-party-abortion-trap-00091088).

He refers to a 2022 national exit poll that found “29 percent of voters believed abortion should be ‘legal in all cases,’ while another 30 percent thought it should be ‘legal in most cases.’ That left 26 percent who thought it should be ‘illegal in most cases and only 10 percent who said it should be illegal in all cases.’” That is,

“roughly six-in-10 voters supporting legal abortion in most cases — with the median voter supporting some restrictions — and just over a third who want it to be entirely or mostly illegal.” Another 2022 midterm exit poll in Wisconsin found

“a combined 63 percent of Wisconsin voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while only 34 percent thought it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

Republicans want to portray “Democrats as too permissive, willing to support ‘abortion on demand, for virtually any reason, up until the moment of birth,’ according to a press release from the Republican National Committee on Thursday [April 6, 2023].

“‘But” Shepard points out, ‘those attacks are largely falling flat. President Joe Biden has said repeatedly he supports the Roe v. Wade framework, which allowed states to impose modest restrictions on abortion later in pregnancies. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 1 percent of abortions in 2020 occurred after 20 weeks of pregnancy,” that is, after 5 months of pregnancy.”

#10 – Encourage easy access to gun ownership

The argument for gun regulation rests most fundamentally on the premises that the ownership of guns should be regulated, and that gun ownership is not an absolute, unlimited right of citizenship. It is commonsense for most people who think about gun rights and control to exclude children, those with violent criminal records, the certified mentally ill who are a danger to others, from the right to gun ownership, and, more controversially, to limit the places at which people can have weapons.

However, for decades since the early 1970s, opponents of gun regulation, most prominently the National Rifle Association (NRA), have used their political influence to foster a one-sided interpretation of the Second Amendment to keep the federal government and many states and local governments from adequately regulating access to guns (gun ownership) by private citizens. Trump is an outspoken supporter of the NRA and of maximum gun rights.

Meredith McGraw reports on Trump’s remarks at a meeting of the NRA on February 9, 2024 (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/trump-promises-nra-that-if-elected-no-one-will-lay-a-finger-on-your-firearms-00140818). At the meeting, Trump promised that if elected “no one will lay a finger on your firearms” and he would roll back Biden-era gun restrictions. McGraw quotes Trump,

“‘Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day,’ Trump said at the NRA’s Presidential Forum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“The former president specifically said he would roll back the Biden administration’s ‘Zero-Tolerance’ policy that revokes federal licenses from firearm dealers that violate gun laws. And he said he would undo regulations on pistol braces, or stabilization devices that have also been used in gun massacres.”

“In a statement released ahead of Trump’s speech, John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety said, ‘With Trump recently telling Americans to ‘get over’ school shootings, we know what a second term would be like: The NRA would once again treat the White House like its clubhouse, and the bipartisan, life-saving progress we’ve made on gun safety will be in grave danger.’”

#11 – Violence against opponents may be necessary

Kenny Stancil cites research that “12 Million US Adults Think Violence Is Justified to Put Trump Back in White House” (https://commondreams.org/news/12-million-us-adults-think-violence-justified-to-restore-trump-presidency). The article was published on June 9, 2023. He writes,

More than two years after the deadly January 6 insurrection, 12 million people in the United States, or 4.4% of the adult population, believe the use of violence is justified to restore former President Donald Trump to power, The Guardian reported Friday.”

“We’re heading into an extremely tumultuous election season,” Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor and CPOST director, told The Guardian. “What’s happening in the United States is political violence is going from the fringe to the mainstream.” [CPOST is the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats.]

“The CPOST survey conducted in April found that 20% of U.S. adults still believe ‘the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president,’ down only slightly from the 26% who said so in 2021.

“‘What you’re seeing is really disturbing levels of distrust in American democracy, support for dangerous conspiracy theories, and support for political violence itself,’ Pape told The Guardian.”

“‘Once you have support for violence in the mainstream, those are the raw ingredients or the raw combustible material and then speeches, typically by politicians, can set them off,’ said Pape. ‘Or if they get going, speeches can encourage them to go further.’”

“Several right-wing candidates who echoed Trump’s relentless lies about President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory lost in last year’s midterms. But more than 210 others—including at least two who participated in the January 6 rally that escalated into an attack on the U.S. Capitol—won congressional seats and races for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, underscoring the extent to which election denialism is now entrenched in the GOP and jeopardizes U.S. democracy for the foreseeable future.”

“The research center’s most recent survey found that ‘almost 14%—a minority of Americans, but still a significant number—believe the use of force is justified to ‘achieve political goals that I support,’ the newspaper reported. More specifically, 12.4% believe it’s justified to restore the federal right to abortion, 8.4% believe it’s justified to ensure members of Congress and other government officials do the right thing, 6.3% think it’s justified to preserve the rights of white Americans, and 6.1% believe it’s justified to prevent the prosecution of Trump.’”

“More optimistically, the survey found that over 77% of U.S. adults want Republicans and Democrats in Congress to issue a joint statement condemning any political violence.

“‘There’s a tremendous amount of opposition to political violence in the United States,’ Pape remarked, ‘but it is not mobilized.’

Meanwhile, the country is awash with privately owned firearms, according to political scientists Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware in their book, God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America. They cite the research of American University scholar Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who estimates “at least 75,000 to 100,000 individuals are actively involved with white supremacist extremist groups, in addition to the 15,000 to 20,000 people who belong to militia organizations comprising some three hundred different groups….” (pp. 226-227).

Concluding thoughts

Trump wants power and, as the record indicates, will do anything to obtain it. The point is that to understand well what he and his supporters want and to reveal their anti-democratic intentions and subversive tactics. Such knowledge and understanding may not in the end by sufficient to prevent an illiberal and violence-tolerant movement from destroying American democracy, but they are absolutely necessary to help rouse citizens to become informed and active, and at least vote to  keep the anti-democrats out of government.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel calls for a “bold, populist, popular, and progressive domestic agenda” that is reflected in the 2025 Congressional Progressive Caucus’s “Progressive Proposition Agenda (https://thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-progressives-election-congress). The CPC platform “details reforms vital to our nation’s security. It lays out the next steps in addressing the climate crisis. It calls for reforms vital to democracy—including instituting same-day voter registration, ending partisan gerrymandering, and curbing the role of Big Money in our politics. It would eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, ban congressional stock ownership and trading, and strengthen judicial ethics, while boldly demanding expansion of the number of Supreme Court justices.

“It also lays out a populist agenda to counter the choke hold of wealth and entrenched interests on our political economy—expanded anti-trust measures, higher taxes on stock buybacks, a minimum tax for the rich, and a crackdown on private equity and hedge fund rapaciousness, particularly in healthcare and housing.”

In 2024, the stakes are far greater than saving the Republic from Trump and his reactionary agenda. If Democrats take back the House, expand their majority in the Senate and keep the White House, reforms that can make a fundamental difference in the lives of all, especially poor and working people, are possible. In 1944, amid a war abroad, Franklin Roosevelt called for an economic bill of rights as central to the postwar recovery. With the Proposition Agenda, the CPC offers bold steps towards fulfilling that goal. And the CPC’s growing power adds credibility to that promise.

The paradox of the white male working class

Bob Sheak, March 12, 2024

Introduction

One of the paradoxes of the U.S. political system is how an anti-democratic Trump can win the support of sections of the white male working class, despite Biden’s relatively strong economic policies in support of this class. The present post explores this paradox.

It may not make that much of a difference in the November presidential elections how these workers vote, but their vote totals are still significant because of the number of white male working class people. And  it is worrisome that they are presently a major Trump constituency and have been influenced by his MAGA rhetoric, with its anti-immigrant, racist, anti-democratic, and pro-gun, rants as well as his strongman image. If the trends of the last few decades continue, whether Trump wins in November or not, their support of Trump appears, unfortunately, to be unwavering.

Biden’s State of the Union speech

In his State of the Union speech on March 7, President Biden spent some time lauding his record on jobs, on infrastructure and high-tech, and on a strong overall economy (https://whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/03/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-state-of-the-union-address-3).

Here are some relevant excerpts.

“Folks, I inherited an economy that was on the brink.  Now, our economy is literally the envy of the world. 

“Fifteen million new jobs in just three years.  A record.  A record.  (Applause.)

“Unemployment at 50-year lows.  (Applause.)

“A record 16 million Americans are starting small businesses, and each one is a literal act of hope, with historic job growth and small-business growth for Black and Hispanics and Asian Americans.  Eight hundred thousand new manufacturing jobs in America and counting.  (Applause.)

The President continued.

“Where is it written we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world?  We are and we will.  (Applause.)”

“On my watch, federal projects that you fund — like helping build American roads, bridges, and highways — will be made with American products and built by American workers — (applause) — creating good-paying American jobs.  (Applause.) 

“And thanks to our CHIPS and Science Act — (applause) — the United States is investing more in research and development than ever before.  During the pandemic, a shortage of semiconductors, chips that drove up the price of everything from cell phones to automobiles — and, by the way, we invented those chips right here in America.

“Well, instead of having to import them, instead of — private companies are now investing billions of dollars to build new chip factories here in America — (applause) — creating tens of thousands of jobs, many of those jobs paying $100,000 a year and don’t require a college degree.  (Applause.)

“In fact, my policies have attracted $650 billion in private-sector investment in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, creating tens of thousands of jobs here in America.  (Applause.)

“And thanks — and thanks to our Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 46,000 new projects have been announced all across your communities.”

An example of Biden’s proposed pro-worker legislation

Biden’s administration showed its pro-worker, pro-union stance early in his presidency.

At a presidential press briefing on March 9, 2021, President Biden introduced the
“Protecting the Right to Organize” (PRO) Act of 2021, strongly encouraging the
House to take up and pass the legislation and stating that it would be a major
step, if and when approved, “in dramatically enhancing the power of workers to
organize and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working
conditions” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases-2021/03/09/statement-by-the-president-joe-biden-on-the-house-taking-up-the-pro-act).

You can access the full proposal at https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers.

Biden believes that the conditions and prospects of ordinary workers starts with
rebuilding unions. He states: “The middle class built this country, and unions
built the middle class. Unions give workers a stronger voice to increase wages,
improve the quality of jobs and protect job security, protect against racial
and all other forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, and protect
workers’ health, safety, and benefits in the workplace. Unions lift up
workers, both union and non-union.  They are critical to strengthening our
economic competitiveness.”

And there are almost “60 million Americans [who] would join a union if they get a
chance, but too many employers and states prevent them from doing so through
anti-union attacks.” There is the precedent of strong action by the federal
government in support of unionization, that is, the National Labor Relations
Act, passed in 1935 despite unified business opposition. The president pointed
out that the NLRA “said that we should encourage unions. The PRO Act
would take critical steps to help restore this intent.”

U.S. House of Representatives passes Pro Act

Don Gonyea reports on NPR that on March 13, 2021, House Democrats approved
the Pro Act by a 224-206 vote, “with five Republicans joining Democrats in
favor of it.” Union leaders supported it. The Senate did not (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/975259434/house-democrats-pass-bill-that-would-protect-worker-organizing-efforts).

Gonyea lists five provisions of the Pro Act.

 “1. So-called right-to-work laws in more
than two dozen states
 allow workers in union-represented workplaces to
opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers
are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract.
The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from
those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and
administration of the contract.

“2. Employer interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden.
Company-sponsored meetings — with mandatory attendance — are often used to
lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal.
Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing
elections at a location away from company property.

“3. Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement
on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle
such impasses in negotiations.

 “4. The law would prevent an employer from using its employee’s immigration statusagainst them when determining the termsof their employment.

“5. It would establish monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate
workers’ rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the company could
also be held liable.”

 Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, described the
Pro Act as a potential “game changer,” saying it would a major step in
correcting the “wages and wealth inequality, opportunity and inequality of
power.”

Biden’s record has little influence

Despite this record, Biden remains slightly behind Trump in recent polls, though they are hardly definitive since we are still many months away from the November presidential election. At the same time, white working-class workers are one of the groups that have been unrelenting and increasingly in support of Trump and his MAGA movement. We explore why this is so.

#1 – Recent polls

Rebecca Picciotto considers some of the recent polls (https://cnbc.com/2024/03/04/biden-may-be-losing-his-favorability-advantage-over-trump-new-polls-suggest.html).

“In four separate surveys released over the weekend by The New York Times/Siena College, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and CBS News/YouGov, Trump’s lead ranged from two points to five points among registered voters.

“The Fox News and Wall Street Journal surveys both showed Trump with a two point lead over Biden, 49-47 and 47-45, respectively. This was within their 2.5% margins of error.

“In the CBS News/YouGov poll, Trump led by four points, 52-48, outside the poll’s 2.8% margin of error.

“The Times/Siena survey showed a slightly larger lead for Trump of five points, 48-43, also outside the poll’s 3.5% error margin.

“Taken together, they paint a picture of a race that is extremely tight, but one where Trump’s advantage is solidifying.

“In addition to the hypothetical matchup lead, the surveys also hinted at a deeper shift in voter perceptions of two men who have been campaigning against one another on and off for the past five years: They suggest Biden may be losing is long-held likability edge over Trump.”

“Across all four polls, Trump had a higher favorability rating than Biden did with respondents, although some were within the surveys’ margins of error.”

“Biden has been fighting tooth and nail to convince voters that the economy’s post-Covid recovery is the result of his economic agenda, which aides have dubbed Bidenomics. But voters, still feeling the inflationary squeeze on their budgets, have yet to give Biden credit for the objectively strong economy, even as they get more optimistic about its trajectory.”

#2 -The pervasiveness of low-wage jobs

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, leader of the Poor Peoples’ Campaign, offers “the true state of the union,” published in The Nation on March 7, 2024 (https://thenation.com/article/society/the-true-state-of-the-union). Here’s some of what he writes.

“No one can say that we haven’t seen good and important progress in the state of our union over the past four years. But we would betray the work of the people who’ve struggled to make that possible if we did not tell the truth about the injustices that continue to plague us.

“The true state of the union is not limited to one administration; it reflects the systemic reality that nearly a third of the workforce—52 million Americans—work for less than $15 an hour. Poverty wages, combined with a steep increase in cost of living, have left 135 million of our neighbors poor or low-income, even as unemployment is at a record low. This doesn’t simply mean that some of us are struggling to get by or learning to ‘do without’ luxuries we’d prefer. Poverty is the fourth-leading cause of death—more deadly than obesity, diabetes, or firearms. Low wages are killing people, but Congress has not acted to raise the minimum wage since 2009. We face a crisis of poverty; we know what could fix it, but our political leaders have failed to act.”

Barber continues.

“Poor and low-wage voters in the US today make up a third of the electorate; they are almost 40 percent of eligible voters in every swing state. As a group, these voters have historically participated at a rate 20 percent lower than their wealthier neighbors. If they were to fully engage, they are the single largest group of swing voters in the country.”

“America’s growing inequality over the past four decades has made us increasingly vulnerable to extremist attempts to divide the nation. When people know from their everyday experience that things aren’t working, it’s easy to play on our worst fears and pit Americans against one another. But at a moment when nearly half of the country is poor or low-income, it’s also possible for everyone who’s been left out and rejected to come together as a powerful force for transformative change. Since 2018, I have been working with the Poor People’s Campaign to mobilize a moral fusion movement of people from every race, religion, and region to change the narrative about what is possible in our public life. On March 2, thousands of us gathered at 32 statehouses and in the District of Columbia to declare that our votes are demands for a Third Reconstruction. We are launching 40 weeks of action in our communities to mobilize 15 million poor and low-income voters for this November’s election. Our political representatives have failed to act, but we are taking direct action to change the balance of power and right the ship of state. No captain can save a ship on his own; to make it through this storm, we need all hands on deck.”

#3 – Corporate anti-worker policies

Steve Early, a union rep for 30 years, addresses this issue in his review of two new books, Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do About It, (Chelsea Green, 2024) by Les Leopold and Corporate Bullsh*t: Exposing the Lies and Half Truths that Protect, Power, and Wealth in America, (New Press, 2023) by Donald Cohen, Nick Hanauer, and Joan Walsh

(https://labornotes.org/blogs/2024/02/27/book-reviews-fighting-wall-streets-war-workers-and-corporate-bs-protects-it).

Here are excerpts from one of the books, “Corporate Bullsh*t.”

“When workers try to win collective bargaining rights, employers conduct propaganda campaigns to spread every imaginable falsehood about the union. Once forced into negotiations, management shows up at the bargaining table with a new line of BS about not being able to afford union wage demands or agree to a grievance procedure. And in the legislative-political arena, corporate interests have long used disinformation to thwart labor campaigns.”

“Don Cohen, co-author of Corporate Bullsh*t: Exposing the Lies and Half Truths that Protect, Power, and Wealth in America, is a former Los Angeles Labor Council staffer who now helps government workers around the country oppose privatization. His collaborators are Joan Walsh, a Nation correspondent, and Nick Hanauer, a wealthy Seattle entrepreneur who has become a critic of income inequality.”

“…Corporate Bullsh*t debunks all the modern-day arguments against job safety and health laws, national health insurance, equitable taxation, climate change legislation, and business regulation, in any form.

“Plutocrats in any era employ politicians from both major parties as their shills and mouthpieces. So Corporate Bullsh*t also dissects the alarmist claims made, now and in the past, by business-backed legislators opposed to stronger legal protections for workers and consumers, homeowners and tenants, or the environment. Corporate America still attempts to discredit even the most modest liberal reforms as failed ‘socialist’ schemes imported from abroad.

In what the authors call our ‘post-fact’ society, the ‘truth purveyed by the wealthy and powerful prevails far too much of the time.’ They warn that corporate elites and their allies have ‘perfected a rhetorical style that relies on deception, fear, and demonizing their opponents.’ The result is a loss of public confidence not only in government, but also in the electoral process itself—and even in essential working-class institutions like unions.”

#4 – The war on workers continued

The title of Les Leopold’s new book says it all: Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed are Destroying the Working Class and What To Do About It (publ 2024). The evidence is clear. The percentage of white workers voting for Democratic presidential candidates has fallen from 52.3% for Carter in 1976 to 36.2% for Biden in 2020 (p. 19).

Leopold focuses on “mass layoffs,” “defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistic as fifty or more workers losing their jobs at a single company during a five-week period” (p. 4). According to the BLS, “more than 30 million of us have experienced mass layoffs” and “even more have felt the pain and suffering as our family members lost jobs” (p. 6). This is occurring because corporate elites prefer buying back the stock in their companies to raise the price of these stocks and stock bonuses. This accrues to the benefit of top management and stockholders, to the stripping of productive assets in these corporations, and to the dismissal of workers. One consequence: “Working people – especially rural white working people in the border states as well as in the North and Midwest – are walking away from the Democratic Party, their historic champion. And if nothing is done to provide more stable employment, they may walk away from democracy as well” (pp. 6-7).

Leopold defines “white working class as those who identify themselves as white, are in the bottom two-thirds of the income distribution, and have less than a four-year college degree” (p. 7). There “are about 52.8 million workers in the white working-class” (p. 42).

Here is more from Leopold’s book

“From 2010 to 2019, an astronomical $6.3 trillion went into stock buybacks, largely benefiting the rich” (p.35). The gap between top CEOs and their average worker has now reached 800 to 1 (p. 76). Corporate debt has risen, ballooning in the 1970s “and accelerating “as the deregulatory policies of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years kicked into high gear” (p.103).

“In the early 1980s, corporate raiders (today called private equity and hedge fund managers) set about buying up company after company using borrowed money” (p. 105). They often use cheap contingent or even prison labor when they can (pp 110-112).

#5 – Why workers are turning away from Democratic Party?

Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol analyze this question in their book, Rust Belt Union Blues: Why Working Class Voters are Turning Away from the Democratic Party (publ. 2023). In addressing the question, they focus on two unions in western Pennsylvania, The United Steel Workers (USW) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Here the focus is on the USW, which has suffered major job losses in western Pennsylvania – and elsewhere.

The steel mills have suffered from trade policies that encourage companies to invest abroad to take advantage of low-wage and unregulated labor, and have done their best domestically to avoid or curtail unions, cut wages and benefits, and paid new workers lower wages and few benefits than other workers. But they have done more than that. US Steel eliminated its support of social and recreational activities for workers. Without such activities and when faced with an authoritarian corporate bureaucracy, workers are now turning to other sources of identification and participation, which have political effects.

Workers have shifted from support of the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Newman and Skocpol put it this way. “Whereas in the mid-twentieth century unions with many locals tied to workplaces and surrounding neighborhoods provided the underlying structure that made taken-for-granted social and political loyalties plausible, today the old ties and structures are mostly dissolved. They have been replaced by gun clubs that now serve as a communal hub, functioning both as gathering places and as centers where displaced white men can assert physical dominance and familial superiority,” and by mega-churches that focus on right-wing cultural issues. They write: “Activities that local union halls once hosted in industrial communities now may happen at gun clubs or in conservative churches that similarly structure social life for many workers’ families” (p.232). Trump and the Republicans have been the political beneficiaries.

#6 – Despite the risks of unemployment, strikes increased in 2023

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder reports on Dec. 28, 2023, for U.S. News on why there were so many strikes in 2023 (https://usnews.com/why-were-there-so-many-strikes-in-2023-and-what-does-it-mean-for-2024).

“More than half a million workers staged nearly 400 strikes during the first 11 months of 2023, according to Cornell University’s Labor Action Tracker.

“‘I think it’s fair to say that, relative to the rest of the 21st century, this is quite a big uptick,’ says Johnnie Kallas, the project director of the tracker.”

“Many union contracts happened to be up in 2023. But it was more than just that. Workers felt empowered by other highly visible and successful strikes (or threats to strike) and a tight labor market, emboldening them to ask for higher pay and other benefits as inflation claimed more money from their pockets.

“‘It really is the first contract many of these unionized workers are negotiating since the beginning of the pandemic, and I think a ton has changed since the beginning of the pandemic’ Kallas says.

“It’s especially true for health care workers who were in the front lines of the pandemic and who may also be dealing with feelings of burnout and seeking better working conditions. Kaiser Permanente workers, for example, walked off the job in October in the largest strike of health care workers in U.S. history.

“‘Then you combine that with pay increases that certainly pretty much anywhere haven’t kept up with inflation over the past few years, and you have a situation where workers are – in a lot of ways, rightfully so – demanding much more in these current contract negotiations,’ Kallas says.

“To be sure, the level of strike activity – while high relative to the 21st century – is significantly lower than it has been in the past. In the 1970s, about 5,000 work stoppages involved more than 2 million workers each year on average.

“Now, Kallas says that employers are ‘much more resistant to both union organizing and strikes than maybe they were in the mid 20th century.’

And it shows. The rate of union membership has declined from 20% in 1983 to 10% last year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, unions have the backing of President Joe Biden and potentially most of the public.

“According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published in September, the majority of Americans regardless of party affiliations say that labor unions have improved the quality of life for working Americans. They also expressed support for the United Auto Workers strike and the Writers Guild of America strike.

“I think the alliance of the public and the labor movement has a potential to influence these dynamics even more in 2024 than we saw in 2023,” says Sharon Block, a professor at Harvard Law School and the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy.

“The moves, however, come with risks. While the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 protects most workers’ rights to strike for better working practices or wages, striking workers can potentially be permanently replaced at their workplace.”

#7 – What can be done to buttress Biden’s re-election?

Leopold has some answers. He refers to what an equitable and democratic solution  would be for workers generally and one that might attract more voters who are white, male, and with less than a college education, writing:

“For democracy to endure, our nation must provide stable livelihoods for working people. Stock buybacks must be eliminated. Corporate raiders must be removed from boards of directors and replaced by employees and their representatives. Workers should be free to join labor unions without corporate interference. And the federal government needs to create jobs as it did through the New Deal programs and the Marshall Plan. That is what it will take to revive communities and regions that have been left behind, from industrial and coal-mining counties to depressed urban areas” (p. 10).

Leopold also supports four reforms proposed by Professor William Lazonick: (1) end stock buybacks; (2) “prohibit shareholder activists from serving on boards of directors; (3) “Change the way top corporate officers are paid”; and (4) “Place worker and public representatives on the board of directors” (pp. 164-165). Then he offers additional ideas on reform.

  • Follow North Dakota’s example and create public banks.
  • Make sure that contingent and gig workers are “considered employees and receive all the benefits enjoyed by regular employees.”
  • “Limit corporate debt”
  • “Prevent Corporate-Focused Trade Deals”
  • Create “a Marshall Plan for Victims of Mass Layoffs”
  • “Make Unionization Easier and Simpler” (pp. 166-172)

Concluding thoughts

The reform proposals offered by Leopold and Lazonick would make a world of difference if passed by the U.S Congress. But Biden and the Democrats won’t go that far. Still, they have an agenda that is pro-worker, pro-union, and pro-democracy. The question is whether some of the white male working-class can be swayed to support Biden over Trump. They can, but it will take luck, imagination, education, wise use of the media, continuous improvement in the economy, and vigorous election campaigns. If successful, they might curtail the trend of white male workers supporting Trump’s authoritarian MAGA plans.

At the same time, of course, Trump and his supporters represent a powerful political force. Biden faces a Trump-led Republican Party that can use procedural rules in the House (the votes of Republican MAGA extremists) and Senate (e.g., the filibuster) that make it hard to get a budget passed, let alone advancing workers’ rights. And they face corporate boards and executives who would spend vast sums to lobby and advertise against any such reforms, strip companies of assets, use strikebreakers, and move or threaten to move facilities to other places.

If Trump and the right-wing forces that support him prevail in 2024, we can expect
that an increasing proportion of the US population will find themselves
economically insecure, marginalized, and/or poor. They will continue to be
without union representation, and burdened with inadequate employment options,
with jobs that pay low wages, provide no benefits or affordable benefits (e.g.,
health insurance; pensions), and provide little or no job security. In these circumstances, right-wing ideology would have trumped secure and equitable employment.

The immigration conundrum

Bob Sheak, Feb 12, 2024

In the U.S. Congress, the Democrats and Republicans have been unable to reach an agreement on immigration policy governing the southern border. This is so even though the number of immigrants crossing the border illegally has risen to record levels. This post offers an explanation of the policy stalemate and what an alternative, less restrictive and less punitive policy would contain.

Current picture

Katherine Bucholz reports on the number of “migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. These include

“both migrants apprehended and those asking to enter legally but deemed inadmissible. Their numbers rose to almost 2.5 million in FY 2023 and stood at 785,000 three months into the new fiscal year, which would constitute another record if extrapolated” (https://statista.com/chart/20397/number-of-migrants-apprehended-at-us-mexico-border).

While President, Trump’s efforts to control the border

Bucholz continues. “Because a majority of people seeking to enter the United States recently have come from Central and South America and more have been applying for asylum, the Trump administration in 2019 overhauled its application process, making many asylum seekers wait in camps on the Mexican side without assistance. The Biden administration tried to end the policy around 1.5 years into its term, in mid-2022, but was ensnared in legal battles. Remain in Mexico was implemented after another system overhaul – the separation of families in U.S. custody and the tendency to release fewer immigration detainees on bail – had caused chaotic scenes at detention centers and an international outcry during Trump’s time in office.”

Attempted compromise

In recent months, the Biden administration has come to support a conservative proposal aimed at deterring immigration.

The Senators most responsible for the bill, “the product of months of bipartisan negotiations” involved “a trio of senators – Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, one of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans.” But, as already noted, “former President Donald Trump and [Mike] Johnson attacked the border deal as too weak, and their opposition, along with McConnel’s opposition, was sufficient in the end to defeat the bill (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-negotiators-defend-bipartisan-border-deal-fire-house/story?id=106959887).

However, Trump has opposed even this measure, arguing that, if passed, it would give Biden and the Democrats an opportunity in November 2024 to claim a win on the immigration issue. Trump wants to be known as the only person who can fix the problem. Senate Republicans have fallen into line and have voted to reject it. The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has followed suit and decided not to put the compromise bill to a vote.

The number of migrants wanting to enter the U.S. will likely continue to increase

While there is little progress in Congress on border policy, Georgina Gustin points out that “the World Bank projects that border problem is going to grow, as nearly 4 million people from Central America and Mexico could become climate migrants by 2050” (https://insideclimatenews.org/98072019/climate-change-migration-honduras-drought-crop-failure-farming-deforestation-guatemala-trump).

In recent years, immigrants trying to enter the U.S. through the southern border have come not only from Mexico and Central America but from many other countries as well, even from China. They are fleeing violence, war, poverty, corruption, the environmental devastation accompanying global warming, as well as seeking opportunities for a “better life.” In short, there’s no good reason to believe that the flow of immigrants seeking entrance to the U.S. will subside.

Then there is internally generated migration, a subject analyzed by Jake Bittle in his book, The Great Displacement: Climate Change and the Next American Migration (publ. 2023). The issue of forced internal migration is not part of the current political debate, but it will be growing problem. Bittle writes:

“By the end of the century, climate change will displace more people in the United States than moved during the Great Migration [from the 1920s to the 1970s] (p.xvi).

Trump opposed compromise bill

Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick delve into this question for Associated Press (AP)in an article published on Feb 4, 2024 (https://apnews.com/article/senate-border-package-asylum-ukraine).

They write: “Senators have come out with a carefully negotiated $118 billion compromise that pairs tens of billions of dollars in wartime aid for Ukraine with new border laws aimed at shrinking the historic number of people who have come to the U.S. border with Mexico to seek asylum.

“While President Joe Biden has worked toward the deal with Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate, it faces a difficult, if not impossible, path to passage. Echoing opposition from their House counterparts, Republican senators have said the border policy doesn’t go far enough and questioned additional aid to Ukraine. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., called it “an easy NO.”

They also point out, “[T]he package has also drawn strong opposition from Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee in November 2024.”

What was in the compromised legislation?

Groves and Jalonick also consider what’s in the bill.

There will be $20 billion of the 118 billion for immigration enforcement, “providing money to hire thousands more officers to evaluate asylum claims, add hundreds of more Border Patrol agents and help stop the flow of fentanyl.”

The “asylum process” will be toughened. “Under the proposal, migrants would have to show during initial screenings that they have a reasonable possibility of being granted asylum. Migrants would also be barred from making an asylum claim if they are found to have a criminal history, resettled in another country or could have found safety if they had resettled in their home country.”

“Migrants who pass the new screening would then receive a work permit, be placed in a supervision program and have their asylum case decided within 90 days. And migrants who seek asylum in between ports of entry would be put into detention while they await the initial screening for an asylum claim. The proposal calls for a large growth in detention capacity.”

“If the number of migrant encounters tallied by Customs and Border Protection reaches 4,000 a day over a five-day average across the Southern border. Once the number of encounters reaches 5,000, expulsions would automatically take effect. For context, border encounters topped 10,000 on some days during December, which was the highest month on record for illegal crossings.”

“The legislation would also authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. And it would provide 50,000 visas for employment and family-based immigration each year for the next five years.

“However, the bill does not contain broad immigration reforms or deportation protections for unauthorized immigrants that were foundational to previous Senate deals.”

“The provision would eventually enable qualified Afghans to apply for U.S. citizenship and adjust the status of eligible evacuees to provide them with lawful permanent resident status after vetting and screening procedures.”

Trump’s influence

Chris Lehmann quotes Trump. “The former president came out against the deal while its details were still being finalized, proclaiming on TruthSocial that ‘I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people, many from parts unknown, into our once great, but soon to be great again, Country!’ In trademark mob boss argot he added, ‘I have no doubt that our wonderful Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, will only make a deal that is PERFECT ON THE BORDER” (https://thenation.com/aticle/politics/border-deal-senate).

Johnson submits to Trump

Lehmann continues. “Johnson, whose short tour as House speaker has already served as a miniature documentary on the multivalent meanings of the word ‘quisling,’ wasted little time in showing his serially indicted, resort-bound Svengali that the message was received….When the Senate deal debated over the weekend, the speaker took to the Sunday talk shows to pronounce the agreement ‘dead on arrival’ in the House.

“But these are all policy matters, and the GOP leadership could not be more militant in advertising its collective hostility to policy. Here, too, they follow the incoherent, tantrum-throwing example of their maximum leader. Trump greeted the news of the Senate package with another TruthSocial tirade. ‘Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done,’ Trump fumed. ‘This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Don’t be STUPID!!!’ In short order, Republican senators began falling over themselves in the act of backing away from their lovingly crafted border package.”

Trump’s record on the border while president

Lehmann reminds readers, “Beyond the considerable weight of historical precedent, however, Johnson’s argument was so laughably threadbare on its own terms as to be pitiable; all one had to do to dispel it was to consult the 400-plus harsh and gruesomely unethical border policies that the Trump White House introduced by executive fiat, which did nothing to reduce the volume of immigration at the country’s southern border.”

Trump’s “wall”

Wikipedia gives a useful account of Trump’s build-the-wall saga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall). Trump promised to construct a much larger border wall than the one that existed during his 2016 presidential campaign, “claiming that if elected he would ‘build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.” This would be a wall, in Trump’s view, that would extend the entire almost 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The President of Mexico at the time, Enrique Pena Nieto, stated that his country would not pay for the wall. And, up to the present, this has been the unwavering position of the Mexican government.

On January 25, 2017, after being elected, “Trump signed Executive Order 13767, which formally directed the US government to begin attempting wall construction along the US border with Mexico using existing federal funding,” though “actual construction did not begin at this time due to the significant expense and lack of clarity on how it would be funded.

“Trump continued to grapple with Democrats in Congress through 2017 over funding and threatened at his rallies and through his tweets to shut down the government if Congress did not approve funding. Congress refused and Trump did partially shut down the federal government for 35 days, from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019, and insisted that he would ‘veto any spending bill that did not include $5.7 billion in border wall funding.’ This turned out to be the longest government shut down in US history. In the end, Trump lost this battle and did not get the funding he wanted.”

Nonetheless, the persistence of Trump on obtaining funding from Congress for the border wall continued (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-29/judge-blocks-trump-s-funding-plan-for-more-sections-of-the-wall).

Congress did authorize $1.4 billion for border security, but that did not satisfy the president. On February 15, 2019, he “signed a Declaration of National Emergency, saying that the situation at the Mexico-United States border is a crisis requiring money allocated for other purposes to be used instead to build the wall.” Following this, “Congress passed a joint resolution to overturn the emergency order, but Trump vetoed the resolution.” This led Trump to say that he would go ahead and transfer already authorized funds for other purposes (e.g., military funds) to be transferred to wall building projects. Up to the present, July 2019, this effort has been stopped by the courts However, the Supreme Court then ruled to allow Trump to shift $2.5 billion from other agency budgets to border security (July 26, 2019).

According to the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of July 2019, construction “had begun to replace old fencing [but] no new wall had yet been built” with government money. Republicans want to re-start the effort.

There are currently “a series of vertical barriers” along the border, “a discontinuous series of physical obstructions variously classified as ‘fences’ or ‘walls’” (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-obliterating-the-right-to-asylum).

In January 2019, there were 580 miles of barriers in place, according to US Customs and Border Protection. There are also other security measures [many in place before Trump], “provided by a ‘virtual fence’ of sensors, cameras, and other surveillance equipment used to dispatch United States Border Patrol agents to areas where migrants are attempting to cross the border illegally. Legal expert Marjorie Cohn points out that Trump was” increasing his illegal militarization of the southern border by deploying 2,100 additional troops to join the 4,500 military personnel already there”

Other Trump policies designed to reduce migrant entry to the U.S.

In addition to the Trump wall, Trump and his administration adopted other policies designed to keep migrants from entering the country. When one policy didn’t work or is met with public outrage, Congressional opposition, and/or legal challenges, another one with the same intent is concocted. They wanted to make conditions so bad that word among migrants would get back to others in their home countries that the costs of migration to the US-Mexico border are too great to justify the arduous and dangerous trek of over a thousand miles from Central America, through Mexico, to the border with the US. In advancing such policies, they ignore or dismiss the deteriorating and unsafe conditions in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries that compel them to migrate.

Make processing of refugee and asylum claims complex and designed to fail

Immigration lawyer Jennifer Harbury provides further details in an interview on Democracy Now on the process by which migrants seek “legal resettlement,” or legal entry, into the U.S. It’s complex that requires asylum seekers provide not only considerable documentation but must satisfy other requirements as well. And it was subverted by Trump (https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/9/human_rights_lawyer_jennifer_harbury_on). Here is some of what she wrote.

“…under 8 U.S.C. 1225, [a person] goes up to the port of entry, knocks on the door and literally says, ‘I’m in danger. I need to apply for asylum.’ And as I said earlier, they then go to a credible fear interview [no criminal record] and then to a detention center, initially, and they’ll be put in proceedings before an immigration judge… if they’ve got perfectly good identification, they’ve never committed a crime, they’re not a threat to anyone, they’re just on the run from the cartels, and they have legal status relatives, citizen or LPR [legal permanent resident of the U.S.], who will take them in and sponsor them and pay all their expenses.”

At that point in the process, a person or parent and children who satisfied all these requirements would pre-Trump have “always been released” on conditional approval of resettlement. Trump contemptuously calls this a “catch and release” policy that he was determined to end and contended that most migrants under these circumstances did not return for scheduled court appearances. The evidence indicates otherwise. Caitlin Dickerson cites information from Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center that case management programs used in the past to ensure immigrants show up for court have proven to be “both cheaper than detention and have a proven track record of near universal court compliance (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/immigration-detention.html).

Trump succeeded in reducing legal, asylum requests

In an article published on Nov. 20, 2020, for the Migration Policy Institute, Muzaffar Chishti and Jessica Bolter make four points about “the Trump effect” on legal immigration Levels (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/trump-effect-immigration-realty). The say that the Trump policies had “immediate and dramatic effects.”

(1) “The administration has sharply lowered refugee admissions, arguing that refugees pose a national security threat and impose a significant financial burden on federal and local governments. In FYs 2018 and 2020, the Trump administration admitted the lowest numbers of refugees since the current U.S. refugee resettlement program began in 1980: 22,491 and 11,814 respectively. This was a significant drop compared to the 84,995 refugees resettled in FY 2016.”

(2) “The administration has also significantly narrowed eligibility for asylum in the United States, for example by eliminating certain grounds for asylum and making it almost impossible to be granted asylum or, more recently, even apply for it at the border. These changes have led many to conclude that the prospects for receiving asylum in the United States have largely ended.”

(3) Despite the attempts to reduce successful asylum claims, the number of asylum seekers whose claims were approved actually increased during the Trump years—to the highest level since at least 1990. This is partly because there have been many more asylum applicants in recent years, and the backlog has been growing for several years. In many instances, applications that were approved while Trump was in office were filed during the Obama administration.

(4) “At the same time, asylum denials have increased even more than approvals, meaning that although the number of asylum grants increased, the approval rate has concurrently decreased, from 43 percent in FY 2016 to 29 percent in FY 2019. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s dramatic narrowing of opportunities to apply for asylum has contributed to fewer new applications being filed. Since these applications can take a long time to process, it is likely that, absent major policy reversals, the number of approved asylum cases will fall substantially in coming years.”

The number of immigrants seeking entry to US will likely continue to rise

According to an article by Georgina Gustin, “the World Bank projects that nearly 4 million people from Central America and Mexico could become climate migrants by 2050” (https://insideclimatenews.org/98072019/climate-change-migration-honduras-drought-crop-failure-farming-deforestation-guatemala-trump).

The Causes

US military interventions

It has been well documented by historians that the countries of Central and South America have been ruled much of the time, certainly over the two hundred years, by authoritarian and self-serving government that siphon off foreign assistance money, promote foreign investment to extract resources, exploit cheap labor, and enable land grabs and unregulated treatment of corporations. And the US has been instrumental in fostering such conditions. Historian Greg Grandin provides an in-depth analysis of the US involvement in creating this system in his book, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (2006).

Legal scholar Majorie Cohn provides a concise summary, as follows.

“The history of U.S. intervention in the Northern Triangle countries has destabilized them and exacerbated the migrant crisis. “[W]e must also acknowledge the role that a century of U.S.-backed military coups, corporate plundering, and neoliberal sapping of resources has played in the poverty, instability, and violence that now drives people from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras toward Mexico and the United States,” (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-obliterating-the-right-to-asylum).

Examples

Alison Bodine and Tamara Hansen point to how the relationship between U.S. intervention in Latin America and the severe problems in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala “is most clearly expressed by the 2009 U.S.-backed coup in Honduras” (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/23/imperialist-made-crisis-migrants-and-refugees).They elaborate: “10 years ago, the United States backed a right-wing overthrow of the elected government of Manuel Zelaya. Since then, political repression, state violence, and increasing poverty in Honduras have escalated, creating structural and institutional vacuums, along with deep instability throughout the country. After the U.S. supported coup Honduras ended Manuel Zelaya’s presidency, a country with a prospect of political and economic development became a failed state.”

Trump and right-wing forces in the US frequently refer to the gangs, like MS-13, throughout the region, and how gang members are said to join migrants on their way to the US-Mexico border (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019//07/23/imperialist-made-crisis-migrants-and-refugees).

 There is little evidence that gangs are a large segment of the migrant flow to the U.S.-Mexico border. That said, gang violence is a prominent reason in causing the flight of migrants out of Central America. An often-overlooked part of the story is that the gangs, or many of them, were created in the US. On this point, Bodine and Hansen say the gangs “were first formed in U.S. prisons, and then transplanted to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala when people were released from prison and then deported.” The cite UNHCR reports to illustrate some of the consequences, and write: “Current homicide rates are among the highest ever recorded in Central America. Several cities, including San Salvador, Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, are among the 10 most dangerous in the world. The most visible evidence of violence is the high rate of brutal homicides, but other human rights abuses are on the rise, including the recruitment of children into gangs, extortion and sexual violence”

Diminishing opportunities

For the people in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, there are presently a growing number of farmers who cannot grow enough food to feed themselves, let alone a surplus with which to buy essentials. There are many others living in urban areas who, amid high levels of unemployment, can only find low-wage work, insecure work. And corrupt governments there offer too few and inadequate public assistance, while promoting policies that disproportionately benefit foreign corporations and their own wealthy classes. These are systemic problems.

Hannah Holleman documents in her book, Dust Bowls of Empire: Imperialism, Environmental Polices and the Injustice of “Green” Capitalism, that farmers not only in Central America but around the world have been locked into an agricultural system imposed by rich, capitalist countries that drive them into debt, degrades the soils and depletes water sources. This unsustainable situation is combined and made worse by the intensifying effects of climate disruption, reflected in increasing periods of drought and other extreme weather events.

The effects of climate disruption

Oliver Milman, Emily Holden, and David Agren address how climate change is increasingly figuring into the mass migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/migrant-caravan-causes-climate-change-central-america). They report that “[w]hile violence and poverty have been cited as the reasons for the exodus, experts say the big picture is that changing climate is forcing farmers off their land – and it’s likely to get worse.” They confirm what so many others have found that most of the migrant caravans come from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, “the three countries devastated by violence, organized crime and systemic corruption, [have roots] which can be traced back to the region’s cold war conflicts.” Now people in these countries also being increasingly afflicted by climate change.

According to experts interviewed by Milman, Holden, and Agren, climate change “is likely to push millions more people north towards the US.” The journalists quote Robert Albro, a researcher at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University, says, “‘The focus on violence is eclipsing the big picture – which is that people are saying they are moving because of some version of food insecurity,’ And Albro continues: “‘The main reason people are moving is because they don’t have anything to eat. This has a strong link to climate change – we are seeing tremendous climate instability that is radically changing food security in the region.’” Albro adds: “Migrants don’t often specifically mention ‘climate change’ as a motivating factor for leaving because the concept is so abstract and long-term…. But people in the region who depend on small farms are painfully aware of changes to weather patterns that can ruin crops and decimate incomes.”

Alternatives

Julia Conley identifies “faith groups” that want “a just and humane policy” in an article for Common Dreams on Feb 7 2024

(https://commondreams.org/news/border-deal). Here’s some of what she writes.

“As the U.S. Senate voted down a $118 billion bipartisan national security supplemental bill Wednesday, more than 800 faith groups and leaders called on lawmakers to completely reconsider legislation regarding the border and ‘pursue effective, fair, and compassionate alternatives’ to the bill ‘that respect the sacred dignity of all people.”

“Led by the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, 662 faith leaders and 155 faith-based organizations said the federal government must consider “just and humane solutions, like those offered by our faith communities” in the coalition’s “priorities for [fiscal year 2024] funding legislation.”

“While we recognize the need to improve the humanitarian protection system, we firmly reject the proposed measures,” said the coalition, which includes Faith in Action, Hope Border Institute, and Jewish Women International. ‘This legislation would exacerbate the humanitarian and operational challenges at the border, place obstacles that severely restrict the right to seek protection, undermine the right to due process in immigration proceedings, and expand immigrant detention, deportations, and the militarization of the border to unprecedented levels.’

The bipartisan bill included provisions that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border if crossings by undocumented immigrants reach a certain threshold, expand capacity to detain migrants, restrict screening standards for people claiming asylum, and expede the asylum process—making it harder for refugees to seek legal counsel.”

Interfaith Immigration Coalition Interfaith Immigration Coalition expresses its opposition. “The cruelty at the border needs to stop. The provisions outlined in the appropriations bill, purporting to automatically shut down the border and expel individuals seeking safety, are not only a failed attempt to secure the border but are also a catalyst for increased chaos on both the U.S. and Mexican sides,” said Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, ahead of Wednesday’s first vote. ‘Any policy that fails to acknowledge the complex realities of migration and prioritizes enforcement over compassion is fundamentally flawed. We call on policymakers to reject these harmful provisions and instead work towards comprehensive solutions that honor our nation’s commitment to human dignity and justice.’

“The coalition pointed to its legislative priorities that would ensure: ‘safety and dignity for asylum-seekers’ by recognizing that refugees have a right under international and domestic law to seek safety in the U.S.; international assistance to reduce forced migration of people affected by climate catastrophe, violence, and poverty; and refugee protection.

Specific proposals from the coalition include:

  • Increasing funding and oversight of the immigration Shelter and Service Program, for which the White House requested $1.4 billion in grants for 2024;
  • Funding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization and other application processing, backlog reduction, and integration, for which the White House requested $755 million;
  • Sufficiently funding Customs and Border Protection to process asylum claims at ports of entry;
  • Eliminating regulatory barriers like the “180-day asylum clock” that restricts asylum-seekers from applying for work authorization;
  • Funding bilateral assistance to Latin American and Caribbean countries, the International Disaster Assistance Account, and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account; and
  • Funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement and its programs for unaccompanied children.

Conley quotes Susan Krehbiel, associate for migration accompaniment ministries at Presbyterian Disaster Assistance. Krehbiel denounced the White House and senators for supporting a provision that would have shut down asylum services at the border once crossings by undocumented immigrants surpassed 5,000 people per day over a five-day average.

“‘When thousands of people come to you seeking protection from danger, the moral response is not to slam the door in their faces,’ said Krehbiel. ‘There are 110 million forcibly displaced people globally, but the leaders of one of the richest countries in the world believe that taking in 5,000 asylum-seekers per day is too many. The U.S. is failing to fulfill its responsibility to accept people seeking safety from violence and persecution.’

“‘Policymakers need to stop pretending that asylum-seekers will just disappear if they turn a blind eye,’ she added. ‘Policies of deterrence haven’t worked in the past and won’t work now. We urge Congress to invest in border policies that actually work on the ground and to receive families seeking asylum with justice and kindness.’”

Anika Forrest, legislative director for domestic policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation had this to say.

“‘Any policy that fails to safeguard respite, protection, and peace for communities fleeing violence and persecution promises tragedy and turmoil,’ said Forrest. ‘U.S. political leaders insist on chaotic and cruel policies that function as impenetrable walls and abandon asylum-seekers. Migration management as well as humane, safe, and orderly processing at the border deserve effective and modern solutions.’” Neither of these proposals were included in the Senate bill.

The elements of a comprehensive immigration policy on asylum seekers

One can imagine progressive and radical alternatives that, if implemented, would in various combinations, reduce the suffering of migrants and increase the number who are permitted to enter the US. It would adhere to international and national laws on refugees, while expanding the criteria that define a legitimate asylum claim. It would decriminalize those who are caught trying to enter illegally. It would expedite the asylum process so that migrants who satisfy the criteria can enter the country without long waits. There would not be the dreadful detention facilities that exist under Trump, rather there would adequately-resourced and humanely managed facilities for those who have crossed the border illegally or who are waiting for an asylum decision by an immigration judge. Children would not be separated from their parents and unaccompanied children, those who come without a parent or legal guardian, would be housed in appropriate facilities until homes were found for them. Those permitted to relocate in the US would be provided with transitional assistance, unless that had relatives or other sponsors who were able to assist them.

And, ideally, the conditions in their home countries that drive people to immigrate would be mitigated. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) has some suggestions, as follows (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/opinion/border-migrants-central-america.html).

“Mr. Biden should engage the leaders of the Western Hemisphere for a summit that identifies shared responsibilities, challenges and opportunities. Engaging Northern Triangle countries, fully restoring the Central American Minors program (which allows children to apply for refugee status in their home countries) and reinstating aid (practices curtailed by former President Donald Trump) is a good start. But a multilateral approach must include our Canadian allies and address the causes of the migration coming not just from Central America but from Mexico as well. We need a shared plan with a focus on security to combat crime and persecution that includes cracking down on gangs and other criminal organizations and creates accountability for politicians and officials who turn a blind eye to criminals.”

In the end, the issue will be addressed or not, depending on politics and elections. Democratic leaders will be challenged to devise a humane immigration policy, as the number of migrants seeking entrance to the U.S. continues to be large for years to come, stretching border resources, the tolerance of voters, limited by other crises affecting the country, and against the opposition of the Republican Party, their massive electoral base, and the right-wing media.

Biden’s support of Israel’s war on Gaza may have electoral consequences

Bob Sheak, Jan 3, 2024

Introduction

This post raises the question of whether President Biden’s quest for re-election in 2024 will be negatively affected by his pledge to continue America’s support for Israel and its war on Gaza.

President Biden has put his 2024 re-election at risk by supporting Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza.

Early in this war, Biden unequivocally supported Israel’s military response to the Hamas attack on southern Israel. In just over a week after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, Biden met with Netanyahu to express his and America’s unequivocal and unconditional support for Israel

(https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1206832708/biden-israel-trip-mideast-peace).

Biden did this without anticipating the devastation and harm Israel was about to afflict on Gaza and the 2.2 or 2.3 million Palestinian people living there. He did it without knowing how widespread and outraged the opposition to Israel’s military attacks and to the intensification of the blockade would be. The bombardment and invasion have led to ever-increasing human death, suffering, and destruction. And, having belatedly realized all this, Biden has continued to support Netanyahu’s policies, while trying to figure out a way to stop the bloodbath without undermining U.S.-Israeli relations.

Blocking a cease fire proposal at the U.N.

At various times Biden and Anthony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, have successfully influenced Netanyahu to support a number of short “pauses” in the war, accompanied by the exchange of “hostages” for Palestinian prisoners. The pauses also allowed trucks carrying food, sanitation, and medical supplies to enter, but never nearly enough to satisfy the growing needs. At the same time, the U.S. has gone along with Israel’s opposition to a cease fire and has supported Israel at the U.N. on this issue.

Prem Thakker reports on the U.S. role in blocking support for a cease fire at the U.N. Security Council (https://theintercept.com/2023/12/21/joe-biden-un-resolution-gaza-today). Here’s some of what he writes.

“Amid all of this suffering, President Joe Biden delayed a United Nations vote for humanitarian aid to Gaza  eight times, watering it down until he felt satisfied enough to not veto it.

“The vote is on a U.N. Security Council proposal, put forward by the United Arab Emirates and repeatedly whittled down just for Biden, that calls for limiting the hostilities in Gaza and expanding aid distribution. Officials reportedly crafted the resolution in such a way that it would be ‘tolerable’ enough for the Biden administration to avoid a veto. The U.S. has long been Israel’s guarantor at the Security Council, using its veto as a permanent member of the council to block almost every measure critical of Israel.

“For Biden, the preemptive concessions were not enough, and he continued to delay the UAE resolution. The main sticking points for Biden were the resolution’s use of the word ‘cessation’ in a call to end fighting and on allowing an independent inspection of aid going into Gaza, rather than the Israel-administered checks that have slowed aid shipments to a crawl.

“As negotiations edged into Thursday evening, the vote was kicked once again, to Friday [Dec 22] — but not without reward for Biden. He was able to force out language that does not establish a mechanism for U.N. inspection of aid, nor call for the ‘suspension of hostilities.’

“On Friday, the fateful vote was finally held — after the U.S. first vetoed a Russian amendment to restore the resolution’s originally stronger language for a ‘suspension.’ Indeed, the 15 member nations [in the Security Council] instead voted on a resolution calling for ‘the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities.’ The resolution passed, 13-0-2. Russia abstained out of frustration. The United States abstained, even after getting what it wanted.”

The Israeli claim of precision bombing is unpersuasive

 Israeli officials says that the massive and increasing bombing of Gaza is precise and aimed at non-civilian targets. They also claim that the 1.1 million Gazan residents in the northern parts of Gaza have been notified to move south, away from the Gaza/Israel border and ostensibly away from Israeli bombing. However, the Israeli bombing is occurring everywhere in Gaza,

The idea of precise bombing to avoid Palestinian deaths and injuries, and the destruction of residences and building of all kinds, including schools, hospitals, residences, and other structures, is hard to believe, given the dense population of the tiny Gazan strip and the extensive and increasing destruction and death that comes with the bombing.

The effects of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Thakker writes,

“An estimated 570,000 people in the Gaza strip are now starving. Three-quarters of the territory’s 36 hospitals are closed. The remaining nine, all in southern Gaza, are ‘partially functional.’ The shuttered hospitals in the north are serving as impromptu shelters for some of the 85 percent of Palestinians in Gaza who have been displaced, but did not trek south to escape the ravages of Israel’s ground invasion. Beyond an estimated death toll of 20,000 according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, a devastating 355,000 are suffering from infectious diseases as conditions in the territory worsen.” These numbers continue rising.

U.S. influence on Netanyahu is limited

Phillis Bennie points out, “The Biden administration’s increasingly public requests for Israel to pay more attention to civilian safety have so far failed — and will continue to fail so long as Israel understands there will be no consequences for saying no” (https://commondreams.org/opinion/cease-fire-in-gaza-now).

Those “requests” must be turned into requirements, linked to direct changes in actual U.S. policy — such as conditioning all aid to Israel on ending its violations of the Geneva Conventions and other parts of international humanitarian law, and ending the longstanding U.S. protection of Israeli officials from accountability in the International Criminal Court. Otherwise polite requests will continue to fail.

Israel withdraws some troops from Gaza

Aaron Boxerman, Isabel Kershner and Eric Schmitt report on small, and temporary, withdrawal and what it may mean

“The Israeli military said on Monday that it would begin withdrawing several thousand troops from the Gaza Strip at least temporarily, in what was the most significant publicly announced reduction since the war with Hamas began.

“The military cited a growing toll on the Israeli economy after nearly three months of wartime mobilization with little end in sight to the fighting. Israel had been considering scaling back its operations, and the United States has been prodding it to do so more quickly as the death toll and privation in Gaza rose.”

“Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the Israeli military spokesman, emphasized that the move to demobilize some soldiers did not suggest any compromise of Israel’s intention to continue fighting until it destroys Hamas, and the fighting across Gaza remained intense. Admiral Hagari, who had said he expected “warfare throughout this year,” indicated that some troops would be called back to service in 2024.

“He did not mention the American requests to scale back, and Israeli officials have not declared any shift toward a more limited, targeted phase of the war in Gaza, though they have said such a transition would come.

“But military analysts and U.S. officials say the troop withdrawal probably signals that such a change has begun, though they caution that the war is nowhere near over.

“Reservists from at least two brigades will be sent home this week, the Israeli military said in a statement, and three brigades will be taken back for “scheduled” training. Brigades vary in size, up to roughly 4,000 troops, and the Israeli military does not disclose how many troops it has deployed in Gaza, so it was unclear how many would remain.”

U.S. supports Israel and its war with money and weapons

The U.S. government continues to supply Israel with money and weapons for its war machine. This makes the U.S., and American taxpayers, complicit in the death and destruction.

Nader criticizes the Biden administration’s request for $14 billion in additional aid for Israel in an article published on Nov. 23, 2023 (https://commondreams.org/opinion/israel-s-antisemitism-gaza). It was part of a larger package that Congress has yet to approve, including $106 billion supplemental funding request from October that includes $61.4 billion for Ukraine and $14.3 billion for Israel—which already receives $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid annually and is now getting some weapons for its war effort without congressional oversight.

However, the Republicans in the House of representatives have yet to allow a vote on the issue. The Biden administration still wants to give the money to Israel. Nader points out that there are other domestic needs on which this 14.3 billion could be better used.

“That sum of money…is greater than the combined annual budgets of the FDA, OSHA, NHTSA and the section of HHS, whose missions are to reduce the loss of hundreds of thousands of preventable American fatalities in the workplace, on the highways, and in the marketplace and the hospitals. (See, the 2016 peer-reviewed study from the John Hopkins University of Medicine).

“Lastly,” Nader writes, “still not calling for a ceasefire, Biden is disregarding his own military’s private advice against an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza as raising the risk of a larger war in the Middle East that would clearly be against the national interests of the American people and U.S. security.

“He could have done what President Eisenhower did in 1956, when he demanded that the Israeli, British and French attack on Egypt stop immediately.

And stop, they did!”

“Moreover, Biden seems unwilling to recognize the historical origins of this conflict that now has mighty Israel occupying, colonizing, brutalizing and stealing land and water from the twenty-two percent of the original Palestine left for millions of Palestinians under Israeli daily control.”

As Nader points out, Biden pays no meaningful attention to the historical context of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, Israel’s five previous wars, or, little significant influence on the continuing onslaught of Palestinians in the current war.

 Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing government have said the war will continue until the hostages are returned and Hamas is destroyed. However, Netanyahu has also said at various times that he would like the Gaza strip cleansed of Palestinians, that Palestinians living in Gaza would be limited to the southern parts of this land, or that there would not be a permanent occupation, but, confusingly that Israel would determine how Gaza would be governed and secured. He has not made it clear what Israel’s objectives are, but has said it will be a long war. Although Biden keeps referring to a two-state solution, Netanyahu ignores or rejects this possibility.

Biden approves the sale of weapons to Israel

John Hudson and Mikail Klimentov report that on the sale of weapons

(https://washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/30/us-weapons-sale-israel-blinken).

“Secretary of State Antony Blinken approved the sale of 155 mm artillery shells and related equipment to Israel by invoking an emergency authority that bypasses the standard congressional review for arms sales, the Biden administration said on Friday.

“A State Department spokesman said that ‘given the urgency of Israel’s defensive needs, the secretary notified Congress that he had exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer.’

“The $147.5 million sale comes as Israel steps up its intense bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip, and as the Biden administration’s rhetoric surrounding the conflict emphasizes the importance of Israel minimizing casualties and scaling back its offensive.”

Death, destruction, and misery increase

Unsurprisingly, the number of reported Palestinian deaths goes up day after day, along with the devastation of medical facilities, schools, whole communities, UN facilities, housing, and more. No place is safe for Palestinians. Hamas also has launched hundreds or thousands of missiles toward Israel, but most have been destroyed by Israeli “iron dome” defenses. As it stands, the blockade, siege, the severe limiting of humanitarian aid, the Israeli efforts at ethnic cleansing of at least northern and central Gaza – perhaps all of the strip –  all contribute to a rising human catastrophe of enormous and tragic proportions.

The most devastating in history

Brett Wilkins cites experts who maintain that “Israeli Bombing of Gaza Ranks Among ‘Most Devastating’ in History” (https://commondreams.org/news/bombing-gaza). The article was published on Dec. 23, 2023. The numbers have continue to rise since then. Wilkins writes: “Gaza health officials said Friday [Dec. 22] that 390 Palestinians were killed and 734 others wounded in the besieged strip over the previous 48 hours, driving the death toll from 77 days of near-relentless Israeli attacks to 20,057, with another 53,320 people injured. More than 6,000 women and over 8,000 children have been killed—approximately 70% of all fatalities.

“That’s more than twice the number of civilians—and over 14 times as many children—as Russian forces have killed in Ukraine since February 2022.

“Thousands more Palestinians are missing and feared buried beneath the rubble of the hundreds of thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged by Israeli bombardment.

“‘The scale of Palestinian civilian deaths in such a short period of time appears to be the highest such civilian casualty rate in the 21st century,’ Michael Lynk, who served as the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories from 2016 to 2022, told The Washington Post on Saturday.”

And it’s hardly over. The death, destruction, and carnage continue to rise.

Israel uses one of the most destructive bombs in Gaza

Robin Stein and colleagues report on Israel’s use of one of the most destructive bombs in human history – manufactured in and exported from the U.S. (https://nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html).

“A Times investigation used aerial imagery and artificial intelligence to detect bomb craters that showed that one of Israel’s biggest bombs was used routinely in south Gaza.

This is an area in Gaza where, for weeks, civilians fled to find safety. These are 2,000-pound bombs, one of the most destructive munitions in Western military arsenals. When a 2,000-pound bomb detonates, it unleashes a blast wave and metal fragments thousands of feet in every direction.”

“Munitions experts say 2,000-pound bombs are almost never used by the U.S. military anymore in densely populated areas. Israel says it must destroy Hamas above and below ground to prevent terrorist attacks like Oct. 7… and claims it’s taking extraordinary measures to protect civilians. But a Times investigation using aerial imagery and artificial intelligence found visual evidence suggesting Israel used these munitions in the area it designated safe for civilians at least 200 times.

“Our analysis indicates 2,000-pound bombs were dropped on a routine basis in south Gaza during the first six weeks of the war. And it suggests that even for those who followed every Israeli evacuation order and advisory, there was still no safety to be found in a war zone that’s more dangerous for civilians than any in recent history. Amplifying the danger are many factors. Hamas intentionally uses dense civilian areas to position military personnel and weapons. Buried underground are vast tunnel networks used by Hamas fighters, but no bomb shelters for civilians. When the war started, Israel completely sealed off Gaza’s borders and claimed it was going to keep civilians out of the crossfire by establishing a safe zone and issuing evacuation orders. By air, phone and social media, over a million people living in northern Gaza were told they must move to the south to be safe. “The I.D.F. is calling for the people of Gaza to evacuate to southern Gaza.” “To go south.” “South of this river.” “Move south. For your own safety, move south.” But the evacuation routes and the safe zone were anything but safe. How often the attacks were launched by Hamas is unclear. But visual evidence indicates Israel was dropping 2,000-pound bombs in the area it was ordering civilians to go. The Times programmed an artificial intelligence tool to analyze satellite imagery of south Gaza to search for bomb craters. The A.I. tool detected over 1,600 possible craters.”

U.S. complicity

Phyllis Bennis argues that “Washington’s acquiescence to Israel’s continuing violations of international humanitarian law makes the U.S. complicit in these crimes (https://commondreams.org/opinion/cease-fire-in-gaza-now).

“The U.S. failure even to acknowledge Israel’s violations sends a message to governments and people around the world that the much-vaunted U.S. commitment to international law is conditional on whether the government violating international law is deemed a close ally or a potential opponent.”

“According to many influential scholars of genocide studies,” Bennis reports, “Israeli violations may be approaching specific violations of the Genocide Convention. As a signatory to the Convention, the U.S. is obligated to do whatever is in its power to prevent a potential genocide. But instead of using its influence to stop these dangerous Israeli actions, the U.S. is enabling them by sending money and arms without conditions, which would certainly violate the Convention’s specific crime of complicity in the crimes of collective punishment, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.”

“The U.S. failure even to acknowledge Israel’s violations sends a message to governments and people around the world that the much-vaunted U.S. commitment to international law is conditional on whether the government violating international law is deemed a close ally or a potential opponent.”

Destruction, death, and misery

Bennis also considers the conditions and effects of Israel’s war on Gaza.

She maintains, “…it is not possible to end or even significantly reduce the direct killing of civilians as long as the bombardment continues (and now combined with a ground invasion).

“Gaza was one of the most crowded pieces of land on earth before this most recent assault. Now almost all of the 2.3 million people imprisoned in the Strip have been forced to move to the southern third of the territory. That means the lack of water, sanitation, electricity, fuel, food, medicine are all much more drastic and urgent.

“According to the World Food Program, 90 percent of Gazan families are now hungry and half the population is starving, while diseases are spreading due to the lack of clean water and sanitation as well as shelter.

“Israel’s bombing has destroyed about 60 percent of all housing in the Strip, and most of the rest is severely damaged. Israel has also targeted UN facilities, schools, hospitals, clinics, mosques, and churches — all of which had been serving as overcrowded shelters for the 85 percent of Gazans forced from their homes.”

More evidence on how Gaza’s residents are affected by Israel’s war.

“In Gaza, at least 21,110 people have been killed and 55,243 injured in Israeli attacks since October 7 (and through Dec. 28). (https://aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/28/israel-hamas-war-live-israel-kills-palestinians-in-central-gaza-attacks).

Israeli deaths and injuries

The death toll of Israelis from Hamas’s attack on Israel stands at 1,400.

There is no doubt that the barbaric attack on Oct. 7 by Hamas in southern Israel must be condemned. Reporting for ABC News, Bill Hutchinson describes the attack (https://abcnews.go.com/international/timeline-srprise-rocket-attack-hamas-isreal-story?id=103816006). The article was published on October 19.

“The conflict was touched off by the Oct. 7 sneak attack, which included thousands of armed Hamas fighters breaching a border security fence and indiscriminately gunning down Israeli civilians and soldiers taken off guard. Other militants stormed beaches in Israel in motorboats and some brought death from the sky, swooping in on paragliders.

More than 1,400 people were killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people were injured, Israeli officials said. At least 32 of those killed in Israel were Americans, according to the U.S. State Department.” Over 200 hostages were taken by Hamas. That number has subsequently fallen as a result of the exchange of some of the hostages for Palestinian prisoners.

In addition, more than 500 Israeli soldiers, officers, and reservists have been killed in the ongoing war against Hamas which began on October 7, the IDF says, as reported by Emanuel Fabian for the Times of Israel, Dec 28, 2023 (https://timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/501-israeli-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-war-against-hamas-starting-oct-7-idf). “The IDF’s list does not include 57 police officers killed during the October 7 attack, as well as an officer killed in a terror attack in Jerusalem, and another officer killed during clashes with terror operatives in the West Bank.”

Ahmed Asmar reports on other injuries to Israeli soldiers (https://aa.com/en/middle-east/1-600-israeli-soldiers-suffer-shell-shock-sumptoms-from-gaza-war-report/3098248).

“At least 1,600 Israeli soldiers have developed shell-shock symptoms since Israel expanded its ground offensive in the Gaza Strip on Oct. 27, according to local media on Tuesday.

“Data obtained by the Walla news website showed that 76% of these soldiers returned to the battlefield after initial treatment in the field.

“Nearly 1,000 soldiers, however, did not improve and required further rehabilitation at military centers, data showed.

“Some 250 Israeli soldiers were discharged from service as they continued to suffer shell-shock symptoms from the war, Walla said.

“According to the news portal, around 3,475 injured soldiers have been treated at the army’s rehabilitation center since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict on Oct. 7.”

Israeli propaganda is not persausive

But the destruction and death levied by Israel are far greater than what Israel forces have suffered. Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy offers one description in an article published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-28/ty-article-opinion/.premium/theres-no-way-to-explain-the-degree-of-death-and-destruction-in-gaza/0000018c-ace3-d22d-a3dd-bdfb92870000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Twitter).

Here’s some of what he considers.

There is no way to ‘explain’ Israel’s conduct in the Gaza Strip. Destruction, killing, starvation and siege in such monstrous dimensions can no longer be explained or justified, even by an effective propaganda machine like Israeli public diplomacy (hasbara; or pro-Israel propaganda).

“The evil,” Levy writes, “can no longer be hidden by any propaganda. Even the winning Israeli combo of victimhood, Yiddishkeit [being Jewish], chosen people and Holocaust can no longer blur the picture. The horrifying October 7 events have not been forgotten by anyone, but they cannot justify the spectacles in Gaza. The propagandist who could explain killing 162 infants in one day – a figure reported by social media this week – is yet to be born, not to mention killing some 10,000 children in two months.

“Israel is already setting up its updated ‘Yad Vashem’ [Israel’s official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust]. Hundreds of Jewish functionaries from the United States are being flown by air shuttle to the burnt kibbutzim in the south.”

“No official guest will be able to land in Israel from now on without being forced to pass through Kibbutz Be’eri [one of the Israeli communities attacked by Hamas]. And afterward if he dares turn his gaze to the Gaza Strip, he will be labeled antisemitic.”

“It is very doubtful this will do any good. Hasbara is now an immoral machine. Anyone who makes do with being shocked at what has been done to us while disregarding what we’ve been doing since has no integrity or conscience…. Of course it’s compulsory to tell and show the world what Hamas did to us. But the story only begins there. It doesn’t end there. Not telling its sequel is a despicable act.”

The children of Gaza

Steve Sosebee, founder of the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, is a guest on Democracy Now and talks with hosts Nermeen Shaikh and Amy Goodman about the absolute unimaginable suffering of the children under the Israeli war

(https://democracynow.org/2023/12/28/palestinian_children_gaza). “It is an organization that provides medical and humanitarian aid to Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank. The fund, founded in 1991, has helped build pediatric cancer center units, emergency departments and ICUs in Gaza.”

Here are excerpts from the interview.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We continue to look at Israel’s war on Gaza and turn now to the war’s impact on children. According to Palestinian officials, the Israeli assault has killed more than 8,200 children in Gaza over the past 11 weeks. At least 8,600 children have been injured. UNICEF says some 1,000 Palestinian children have had limbs amputated without anesthesia due to the lack of basic medical resources….[By the time you read this post, the numbers will have risen.]

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Steve Sosebee, you mentioned, of course, that even before October 7th, the care for amputees in Gaza was very, very poor. If you could talk about what you’re hearing from your colleagues in Gaza now, where there are so many children who are in need of prosthetic limbs? What is the situation there now, especially since also, as we reported, you know, there isn’t even anesthesia available for operations for children who are so much in need?

STEVE SOSEBEE: Yeah, it’s hard to even convey the idea that in this world today that children are being amputated, having limbs amputated, as a result of traumatic injury, without anesthesia. And by the way, there’s plenty of anesthesia medicine at the border of Egypt waiting to enter Gaza. There’s plenty of food at the border of Egypt ready to enter Gaza. Children are starving. People are starving in Gaza. It’s not as if there’s some kind of natural disaster that’s preventing anesthesia medicine to come into Gaza and be able to be utilized to treat injured children. This is absolutely unimaginable that this is happening in this modern world. And we’re witnessing it, and everybody sees it, and nothing is changing.

“The fact that there’s now 1,000 new amputees, at least — and that number is going to grow, because a lot of these kids are with significant injuries in which their limbs are going to have to be amputated in the coming weeks and months. Let’s keep in mind, not only were they amputated without anesthesia, but many of them were amputated in a very quick fashion. And, you know, God bless the doctors and nurses in the health sector in Gaza. They are the true heroes in this, if there are any heroes in this, and there are, of course, among the Palestinian health workers. They’re the ones who are, day and night, in the hospitals, exhausted, as their own families are living under bombs and being killed, trying to help their own patients. And they’re doing these amputations in a very quick manner, because they have so many injured cases coming in. And a lot of these kids who are suffering traumatic amputations have to have surgery again in the future and even further amputations, because they’re not getting the adequate care in the initial stages of an amputation. So they’re going to need revision surgery.” ….

“There is no services at all in Gaza for amputees. The hundreds of kids that we’ve treated over the years who’ve suffered traumatic amputations in Gaza,” as “their limbs are breaking down. They’re being destroyed. They’re being — they need to be adjusted. They need to be repaired. So these kids are now going again without limbs.

“And you can imagine, under these circumstances, once again being dependent on others to carry you around, or being on crutches while your neighborhoods are being bombed or your refugee camps are being bombed, is just an unimaginable situation.”

STEVE SOSEBEE: “Yeah. So, prior to October 7th, we were on the ground in Gaza identifying needs in all of the various specialties in the health sector and developing programs to support the improvement of patient care and reducing the need for patients to leave the Gaza Strip for medical treatment that they should be getting locally. We were training doctors. We were bringing in medication, medical support.

“We were bringing in medical teams from all over the world — we’re the main organization doing this — and providing hands-on training and support in various specialties that don’t exist in Gaza — open-heart surgery for children, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and so on and so forth, reconstructive surgery. These were all specialties that we were identifying as a need on the ground and bringing in teams to address those needs.

“And in addition to that, we were identifying significant gaps in the health sector, like the lack of pediatric cancer treatment for children, in which prior to our opening of the only cancer department in Gaza in 2019, every single child in Gaza with cancer had to travel outside for treatment. And a lot of them were suffering, and in many cases even dying, due to the lack of permits being issued or the access to care.

“After October 7th, the health sector, as you all know, has been almost completely destroyed. There’s only a few hospitals now functioning, most of them in the south. The European Gaza Hospital, Nasser Hospital, Al-Aqsa Hospital are the three main hospitals in the center and in the south of the Gaza Strip that are now operating, but they’re basically just triage centers.”

“And this is what needs to be pointed out, as Amy said in the early part of the show when she mentioned the statistics of over 8,000 children in Gaza have been killed [now over 10,000]. They’ve been killed by bombings. They’ve been killed by traumatic injury. What about the children who have heart disease, who need medical care they can’t get in Gaza anymore? What about the kids who have neurological disorders or have cancer or have other types of, in many cases, quite serious injuries or diseases, that they otherwise would get through our medical teams coming in or through the health system being available that can do elective surgeries, no longer having access to treatment, kids with diabetes, kids with dialysis? All of these children no longer have medical care, and they’re dying, or they’re not getting treatment. In many cases, their conditions are getting worse, and they’re suffering.” ….

“Add to that the fact that a significant number of children now in Gaza are suffering from hunger and from starvation. All of these factors, in addition to the over 8,000 children that have been killed through bombings of their homes and of their schools and of their mosques and churches and hospitals, you add all of those numbers up, and it’s an absolute humanitarian catastrophe, far beyond what anybody can even articulate properly in words. It’s unimaginable.”

A letter from MECA on the horrendous conditions facing children

Here is a copy of a letter sent out on the Internet by Wafaa El-Derawi, the MECA [the Middle East Childrens’ Alliance] Nutrition Coordinator in Gaza (https://meca@mecaforpeace.org).

“My name is Wafaa El-Derawi and you may know that I’m the MECA Nutrition Coordinator in Gaza. There are no ‘normal times’ in Gaza but usually my work is focused on getting healthy meals to children in kindergartens, supporting women with small food businesses, and delivering food parcels to vulnerable families.

“The hunger I’m seeing now is unbelievable. So is the strength and determination of the MECA partners and volunteers in Gaza.  Please donate now so we can continue getting food to children every day.

“Israel is deliberately starving us. A report on hunger in Gaza just came out from a UN agency called the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). It’s filled with numbers, diagrams, and dry language but the story it tells is very real and very terrifying:

 • More than half a million people are facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity. That is the last phase before famine.

 • All children under five in the Gaza Strip—335,000—are at high risk of severe malnutrition and preventable death

 • Four out of five households in the north, and half the displaced households in the south, go entire days and nights without eating. Many adults go hungry so children can eat.

These conditions are also ripe for the spread of disease.

Palestinian and foreign journalists targeted

Karen Attiah reports on this (https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/18/israel-gaza-war-journalists-killings). “According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 64 journalists have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war; 57 were Palestinian, four were Israeli, and three were Lebanese. This war ‘has been the deadliest conflict for journalists that CPJ has ever recorded, in terms of documenting attacks on the press,’ CPJ President Jodie Ginsberg said in an interview with the New Yorker.

“For context, nearly as many journalists have been killed in two months in Gaza as were killed worldwide in 2022.

“It’s not just that journalists are being killed; some believe they have been explicitly targeted, even outside Gaza.”

For example: “On Oct. 13, an Israeli strike in Lebanon killed Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah and injured six others. Reuters, Agence France-Presse, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International assert that the Israeli strike was most likely deliberate and therefore a war crime. Israel has said that the strike was in an active combat zone and that the episode was “under review.”

Biden appears sensitive to the public outrage over his support of Israel but has little effect on the war

The Polls

Mark Murray reports for NBC News on the negative impact of Biden’s embrace of Israel’s policies (https://.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-bidens-standing-hits-new-low-israel-hamas-war-rcna125251). Murray writes,

“President Joe Biden’s approval rating has declined to the lowest level of his presidency — 40% — as strong majorities of all voters disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll.

“What’s more, the poll finds Biden behind former President Donald Trump for the first time in a hypothetical general-election matchup, although the deficit is well within the poll’s margin of error for a contest that’s still more than 11 months away.

“The erosion for Biden is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza, and among voters ages 18 to 34, with a whopping 70% of them disapproving of Biden’s handling of the war.”

Murray continues.

“…only 34% of all voters approve of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war, versus 56% who say they disapprove.

“By party, only half of Democratic voters (51%) say they approve of Biden’s handling of the war, compared with majorities of independents (59%) and Republicans (69%) who say they disapprove.”

“And while a majority of all voters (55%) support the United States providing military aid to Israel, almost half of Democrats (49%) say they oppose this aid.”

What to do?

It is neither lawful nor morally justified for Israel to continue on its current path in Gaza. Therefore, there must be pressure from the U.S. on that country to stop the bombing, the ethnic cleansing, the siege, the collective punishment, and any genocidal policies advanced by Israel.

It may begin with a “humanitarian pause” that allows for an adequate supply of aid to enter Gaza, including fuel. It should be accompanied by a cease fire. Ideally, though presently unlikely, there would also be negotiations that ended Israeli bombing and lifted the siege and blockade. Hostages held by Hamas could be released as part of a peace settlement, perhaps in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israeli authorities.

Humanitarian pause

Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Emily Rose report on how the UN, US and Canada have at last appealed for a “humanitarian pause in the Israel-Hamas war to allow safe deliveries of aid to civilians short of food, water, medicine and electricity in the Israeli-besieged Gaza Strip” (https://reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-promises-unrelenting-attacks-hamas-us-obama-urge-caution-2023-10-24).

According to Reuters, “U.N. agencies were pleading ‘on our knees’ for emergency aid to be let into Gaza unimpeded, saying more than 20 times current deliveries were needed to support the narrow strip’s 2.3 million people amid widespread devastation from Israel’s aerial blitz.”

“The United States is negotiating with Israel, neighboring Egypt and the U.N. to smooth emergency deliveries into Gaza, but have wrangled over procedures for inspecting the aid and over bombardments on the Gaza side of the border.

“While we remain opposed to a ceasefire, we think humanitarian pauses linked to the delivery of aid that still allow Israel to conduct military operations to defend itself are worth consideration,” a senior U.S. official said.”

“U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the Security Council: ‘Palestinian civilians are not to blame for the carnage committed by Hamas,’ referring to the militants’ killing of 1,400 people, mainly civilians, and capture of over 200 in a one-day rampage through Israeli communities near Gaza.

“‘Palestinian civilians must be protected. That means Hamas must cease using them as human shields … It means Israel must take all possible precautions to avoid harm to civilians,’ Blinken said.”

“The World Health Organization, in the latest of increasingly desperate U.N. appeals, called for “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire” to prevent food, medicines and fuel supplies from running out in Gaza.”

“Doctors in Gaza say patients arriving at hospitals are showing signs of disease caused by overcrowding and poor sanitation after more than 1.4 million people fled their homes for temporary shelters under Israel’s heaviest-ever bombardment.

“All hospitals say they are running out of fuel to power their electricity generators, leaving them increasingly unable to treat the injured and ill. More than 40 medical centres have halted operations, a health ministry spokesman said.

UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, warned in a post on messaging platform X that it would halt operations in Gaza on Wednesday night because of the lack of fuel.

“However, the Israeli military reaffirmed it would bar the entry of fuel to prevent Hamas from seizing it.”

Calls for a cease fire plus

Pleas for a “humanitarian pause” in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and for increases in humanitarian aid are often combined with demands for a cease fire. But they also sometimes go beyond such demands to include an end to the blockade. the recognition of the Palestinians’ right to their own independent state, and the reclamation of some of the land in the West Bank taken forcibly by Israeli settlers, with backing by Israeli military forces. Right now, the call for cease fire is needed to end the slaughter of Palestinians and the danger the conflict poses to Israelis.

Concluding thoughts

Biden’s support of Israel’s genocidal war on Palestinians in Gaza is bound to have some negative electoral consequences for his 2024 presidential campaign. Those Democrats and Independents who oppose or are critical of the U.S. support of Israel will be in a quandary. The options.

(1) A vote for Trump would be a vote for an authoritarian candidate, who, with support from the Republican Party, broad swaths of corporate America, and his massive electoral base, would end democracy in America.

(2) Not voting would have the same effect. A vote for Biden would be a vote for letting Israel extend its un-democratic and violent suppression of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank (where Israeli settlements continue to expand), and in Jerusalem. In this case, the U.S. would continue to be complicit in the Israeli suppression or elimination of Palestinians through its financial and weapons support and thus would be guilty of war crimes. And, as in option #1, not voting would increase the chances that Trump wins in 2024.

(3) There are reasons for voting for Biden, to keep Trump out and to support a largely prosperous economy that reflects Biden’s policies. See David McCall’s article on “How Biden’s Economy Puts Money in Workers’ Pockets” (https://counterpunch.org/2023/12/26/how-bidens-economy-puts-money-in-workers-pockets). McCall is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW).