JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Biden Signs Three Executive Orders to Reverse Xenophobic Policies
Brief #114—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Earlier this week, President Biden signed three Executive Orders to begin the lengthy process of undoing Trump-era immigration policies that have stained American foreign policy and international perception. The Senate had just confirmed Alejandro N. Mayorka as Secretary of Homeland Security – in which all but seven Republican voted no, which accurately depicts the divisions in the US government about American attitudes towards foreigners. Mayorka will be the first Latino-American of his position.
First Lady Jill Biden Highlights Role As First Professor in the White House
Brief #54—Education
By Linda F Hersey
Twenty-four hours before Joe Biden was inaugurated as president, First Lady Jill Biden was teaching her English composition class as usual at Northern Virginia Community College. The First Lady’s decision to keep her day job as she settles into the White House is symbolic. She said that she likes her job as a college professor, worked hard for her PhD and is committed to teaching. Having a first professor in the White House energizes calls or free college education, which is available in many European countries, including Norway, Sweden and Germany, which have apprenticeships as well. Her commitment and advocacy raise the status of higher education in the Biden presidency. The First Lady is a long-time member of the National Education Association (NEA), which is the nation’s largest labor union and whose members advocated for the Biden presidency.
The Prosecution of Alexei Navalny
Brief #105—Foreign Policy
By Tim Irwin
Alexei Navalny was recently sentenced to three and a half years in prison for violating his probation from a 2014 case in which he was convicted of embezzlement. He violated probation because he was unable to contact his parole officer was because he had been poisoned . The poisoning occurred in Siberia and Navalny was flown to Germany where he was able to recover. Investigative reporters eventually were able to conclude the poisoning, caused by a military nerve agent, was carried out by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). Navalny himself says that Vladimir Putin spearheaded the effort.
Status Update on the Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief #8—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
On January 6th, as Congress was counting electoral votes, a crowd of far-right extremists rioted outside and eventually made their way into the Capitol building. Their actions prompted members of Congress, as well as former vice-president Mike Pence, to go into hiding and leave their session behind. Criminals sat in the offices of congressmen and congresswomen, and in the end lives were lost. Many people view the actions of these extremists as terrorist acts, for they were attempting to interfere with the results of an election that was already deemed fair by the DOJ and FBI. Whether they will be charged as terrorists or not, the Justice Department will be pursuing criminal charges against as many of the protest attendees as possible. It is no secret that the path to a trial is not always speedy here in the U.S., so many of those involved with the January 6th riots have only been charged and have not yet been tried for their crimes.
Nigerian-Born Grandmother Anticipates Taking Oath to Become U.S. Citizen
Brief #4—Americans on America
By Linda F Hersey
Nigerian-born, mother of six grown children, Celine Suala emigrated to the United States in 2012, landed a job as a private security guard, and learned to speak English fluently, in addition to her native Swahili. At 65, she is not about to slow down either. In February 2021, Suala will formally embrace a new identity and complete a personal journey when she takes the official oath to become an American citizen, pledging to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the United States of America. In reciting the 140-word pledge, she will join millions of people who have become naturalized U.S. citizens. In the last decade, more than eight million people became U.S. citizens, with California having the largest foreign-born population, at 27 percent.
Upcoming Run-Off Elections
Brief #15—Election Campaign News
By William Bourque
As we enter this post-Trump world, we now switch focus to runoff elections being held in the wake of cabinet appointments and other events that have taken place. Several runoff elections are being held in several districts, such as LA-02, LA-05, NM-01, and OH-11.
In LA-02, we will be seeing a special election due to the appointment of Cedric Richmond as Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. The district, which includes parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans is a strong democratic seat. Several candidates have already announced their intention to run, with the frontrunners being state senators Karen Carter Peterson and Troy Carter, who will first have to face a primary on March 20, 2021. Senator Carter Peterson has served 20 years in Louisiana’s Congress, splitting evenly 10 years in the House and 10 in the Senate. Senator Carter has spent 30 years in public service, ranging from State House of Rep. to New Orleans City council to State Senate. Needless to say, the primary on March 20 is likely to decide who will ultimately win the seat.
Biden Signs Executive Orders Regarding Abortion and Obamacare
Brief #94—Health and Gender
By Erin McNemar
On Thursday, January 28, President Joe Biden signed two executive orders regarding the future of health care in America. According to a press release from the White House, the Executive orders are being signed to strengthen Americans’ access to quality and affordable health care. The first of the executive orders was to roll back anti-abortion measures that were put in place during the Trump administration.
The second of the two orders was to direct federal agencies to reverse Trump administration policies that weaken HealthCare.gov, and made it harder for individuals to get Medicaid. As Biden continues to roll back Trump administration policies, the American people are going to see the return of plans that reflect the Obama era.
President Biden Moves Forward With Creation of Court Reform Commission
Brief #149—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
During the 2020 presidential election campaign then Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden said on the TV program 60 Minutes, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want.” Biden was responding to talk over a replacement for Brief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had passed away in September 2020. Republicans were then in control of the Senate and were pushing to speedily confirm nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was eventually confirmed to the Supreme Court with less than a week until the November 3, 2020 election.
Which Companies are Profiting from the Pandemic?
Brief #108—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
With the roll out of COVID 19 vaccinations, and the Biden administration’s pledges to speed their dissemination, it might be imagined that the drug companies are reaping enormous profits. This would be, in large part, an incorrect presumption. Because many of the pharmaceutical companies took money to develop the vaccine, there are limits on how much they can charge for the product. Pfizer, one of the first to bring a successful vaccine to market, did not take government funds for research and development of the vaccine; they did join Operation Warp Speed, at a cost of $1.95 billion to the government to provide the first batch of 100million free to the public. They will charge the government $39.99 per two dose protocol. While the vaccine costs $15 per person to produce, there are also shipping, administration, and distribution costs. They are expected to sell $14bn orth of vaccine in the first year.
Police Wall of Shame: The New York Police Department
Policing in America
“Police Wall of Shame” is a Policing in America series by Laura Plummer.
October 15, 2020
Summary
The New York Police Department (NYPD) is the largest police department in the U.S. and the second largest in the world after Tokyo. It has over 36,000 sworn officers, equal to the population of a small city, with approximately one officer for every 233 people.
When the NYPD killed Black man Eric Garner in 2014, it helped transform the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter into a national movement. Since then, the department has not done much to improve its reputation. In fact, its shocking antics continue to dominate headlines. From discriminating against women to planning assaults on protestors, it’s no wonder the NYPD finds itself in our Police Wall of Shame.
Date: June 4, 2020
Incident: Officers assaulted protestors in what was called the “most aggressive police response” to the George Floyd murder protests in the U.S.
Date: August 11, 2020
Incident: A female chief quit and sued the department for rampant gender discrimination. She alleged that women were systematically prevented from reaching top positions.
Date: September 1, 2020
Incident: Officers pushed back against the department’s new disciplinary measures, which are meant to improve transparency and accountability in the department. They complained that such measures would prevent them from doing their jobs.
Date: September 9, 2020
Incident: The president of the sergeants union posted a homophobic tweet about an openly gay city councilman. The councilor called for the union leader’s resignation.
Date: September 10, 2020
Incident: The department continued to promote an officer who was accused of invasive, inappropriate strip searches of Black and Latino men.
Date: September 17, 2020
Incident: Reporting showed that officers were still ticketing street vendors in September, despite Mayor de Blasio’s June declaration that the department would be relieved of this duty.
Date: September 25, 2020
Incident: The department suddenly suspended its funding for a crisis intervention training meant to reduce violent conflict with the mentally ill by teaching officers empathy.
Incident: The state attorney general declared that the department should cease making traffic stops, due to a history of stops escalating quickly into fatal violence.
Date: September 26, 2020
Incident: Officers aggressively charged at a group of protestors, diners and pedestrians, arresting 12 people. Protestors were responding to having their music equipment seized by the department during a raid of a peaceful art protest earlier in the evening.
Date: September 28, 2020
Incident: An officer was arrested for allegedly punching and pointing a gun at his girlfriend. The officer had a long history of domestic violence and was previously arrested in 2014 for threatening a woman with knives.
Date: September 29, 2020
Incident: Officers refused to wear face masks, despite it being law. Gov. Cuomo pointed out the hypocrisy of a group that is tasked with enforcing mask-wearing and yet refuses to cover their own faces.
Incident: A judge ordered a judicial review into the department’s killing of Eric Garner in 2014. Officers put Garner in a chokehold despite the fact the chokehold had been banned since 1993.
Date: September 30, 2020
Incident: A report revealed that the department planned the assault on protestors on June 4 (see above.) The attack was led by the highest-ranking uniformed officer on the force.
Incident: The department was lambasted by a former officer. The man uploaded a video in which he criticized its modern tactics and militarism, comparing it to the Call of Duty video game.
Date: October 2, 2020
Incident: Several dozen officers dressed in riot gear disrupted an outdoor concert. Neighbors were shocked, stating they had never seen such an overwhelming show of force.
Incident: The department broke the law by failing to enforce illegal placard parking. Officers are required to investigate placard abuse and turn the evidence over to the Department of Investigation.
Analysis
In early summer 2020, New York City saw an increase in protests against police brutality and calls to defund the NYPD. While these outward demonstrations seem to have waned in recent months, local advocacy groups like Brooklyn Movement Center, Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) and The Gathering for Justice are still hard at work organizing for tangible change in policing.
One way in which residents can have their voices heard is by voting in the city’s 2021 elections. Up for election are mayor, city councilors, public advocate, borough presidents and district attorneys. New Yorkers are urged to support progressive candidates who back comprehensive police reform. A list of current candidates can be found here.
Resistance Resources
- Brooklyn Movement Center – A campaign to end discriminatory policing practices in New York
Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) – A campaign working against discriminatory and abusive policing in New York - The Gathering for Justice – An organization working to expose the NYPD’s unfair targeting of people of color
This brief was compiled by Laura Plummer. To add an incident involving the NYPD to this article, please contact me@lauraplummer.me.
Rescinded Environmental Policies and how they will impact the Economy
By: Shannon Q. Elliott
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Policy Summary
According to the Trump Administration they have been successful in “cutting the red tape” of Obama era environmental policies and protections. While boasting about the strides they have taken to promote economic growth, create jobs, and give industries more flexibility, they fail to recognize that these particular policies are contributing to environmental degradation. The deterioration of the environment will have adverse effects on the “strong economy” as new policies threaten habitats, clean water, fresh air and wildlife, it’s just a matter or time before the economy suffers a catastrophic crash.
Two policies that are being deconstructed under the Trump agenda, are protections for air and water. The Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) and The Navigable Waters Protection Rule, (NWPR) have been amended in an effort to allow industries and businesses to operate without government interference. ACE replaced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) which set a target for coal industries to adjust their emissions and comply beginning in 2018, with strict compliance by 2025. Coal plants are responsible for 43% of mercury emissions, and 30% of toxic water pollution; CPP would have removed 1.4 billion pounds of toxic pollution, which would have given the environment a chance to rebound. ACE allows more flexibility with their carbon emissions, requiring compliance by 2030. ACE is only applicable to the coal industry, and by extending the deadline for compliance, ACE allows toxic pollution to gain more momentum.
The Navigable Waters Protection Rule reduced the number of federally protected waterways. This leaves smaller bodies of water, including streams, wetlands, and habitats vulnerable to pollutants. The rule was rewritten to provide clarity over waterway jurisdiction. Under NWPR, the states retain jurisdiction over smaller bodies of water, leaving the larger waterways regulated by federally. The President contends that the NWPR will allow states to manage their resources in a way that is supportive of farmers and ranchers. By redistributing water protections, this creates a disproportioned system, cleanliness of drinking water will vary by state, an influx of pollution will intrude on rivers and streams, and flood risk increases.
It should not come as a surprise that the two aforementioned rules are tied up in litigation. Environmentalist groups, scientists, and States are lobbying to have these rules amended to support a healthy environment. Not only are they rallying for public health, but they are also trying to prevent an economic nosedive.
Analysis
How does environmental failure affect the economy? When the administration decides to slash conservation protections, their short-term gains cause an irreversible domino effect. ACE is less restrictive than the 2015 CPP, granting the coal industry the ability to operate 5 years longer resulting in more American deaths vs. jobs saved. According to thirdway.org, Trump’s new plan could result in “1400 premature deaths, 430 non-fatal heart attacks, 48,000 cases of exacerbated asthma, 500 cases of acute bronchitis, 42,000 lost workdays, and 60,000 school absence days annually by 2030.” People who become ill will be unable to work, resulting in a mass health crisis and bankruptcy. The climate will continue to warm, while emissions are being pumped into the air, which paves the way for disastrous acts of nature such as wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, and inclement weather events that will pummel parts of the world. When these events take place, there is substantial damage caused to roadways, airports and infrastructure. Climate volatility will drive up the cost of labor, economic goods, and the supply chain. In North America alone, Morgan Stanley reported that from 2017-2020, events associated with climate change cost about $ 415 billion dollars.
What about clean water? Clean water is essential to a thriving society, and under the NWPR, clean water is in jeopardy. Farmers and landowners are thrilled with the new rule that grants them the freedom to use pesticides, without fear of government interjection. In the short-term, the relaxed rule permits them to grow more crops and raise livestock, but ultimately, the contamination and toxins released into the groundwater will put their farms at risk of flood, unstable climates will kill crops, and agricultural sectors will suffer disruptions in supply and demand.
Climate effects agriculture, infrastructure, tourism, global markets, and human productivity, just to name a few. “We will pay for climate breakdown one way or another, so it makes sense to spend the money now to reduce emissions rather than wait until later to pay a lot more for the consequences… It’s a cliché, but it’s true: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Joseph Stiglitz Noble Prize Winner; Economist Columbia University.
Learn More:
Analyzing Trump’s “Affordable Clean Energy” rule using the EPA’s own data. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/analyzing-trumps-affordable-clean-energy-rule-using-the-epas-own-data
Trump Administration Cuts Back Federal Protections For Streams And Wetlands. (2020, January). NPR.org
US report warns climate change could create economic chaos. (2020, September). https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/business/climate-change-economy-cftc-report/index.html
Resistance Resources:
- Climate Group : https://www.theclimategroup.org/partner/state-california
- The World Bank : https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview
- Environmental Defense Fund : https://www.edf.org/
Two New Twists In The Saga of The 2020 Census; October 2020
Policy Summary: On October 13, 2020 the United States Supreme Court issued an order that stayed an order from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the suspension of the September 30, 2020 deadline for finishing the 2020 census count. And, on October 16, 2020 the Supreme Court announced that it had set for argument on November 30, 2020 to consider whether the census can exclude undocumented immigrants from the overall tally of persons.
Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that enumeration of all persons shall be done every ten years which will then determine how congressional Representatives will be apportioned among the several States. However, on July 21, 2020 President Donald J. Trump issued a presidential memorandum that directed the Secretary of Commerce to exclude illegal aliens from being counted for the apportionment base following the 2020 census. In response to this directive multiple lawsuits were filed by a number of plaintiffs asking the court, among other things, to not exclude illegal aliens from the overall census tally and the Commerce Department to not transmit any citizenship or immigration status data to the President for apportionment purposes. The multiple lawsuits were consolidated and at trial Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the plaintiffs. She issued an injunction that suspended both the September 30 deadline for finishing the census and the December 31 deadline for reporting the final census tally to the President. A number of groups had advocated for an extension of time to continue with the census count as the process had been upended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The injunction issued by Judge Koh helped to give more time to conduct a more thorough count as the deadline to report the numbers to the President was pushed back to April 2021.
The government’s argument has been more of a technical argument. The finalization and reporting deadlines are set in federal law. So, the government was merely arguing against an extension because it did not want to agree to an extension and then be accused of not following the law. Only Congress can change the deadlines which wasn’t going to happen.The injunction was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the injunction and extension of the reporting deadlines. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which issued an order overturning the trial court injunction. This in effect will allow the Commerce Department to end census operations by the September 30th deadline and report the final census tally by the December 31st deadline. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The latest orders issued by the Supreme Court are just the latest twist in the ongoing saga of the 2020 decenniel census. The importance of this census is staggeringly high as an accurate tally of the American population and where persons are living in the country will be used to determine how many Congressional Representatives a state will have for the next ten years, how many electoral votes it will have in upcoming presidential elections and how federal monies will be divided and doled out to states to use.
The Supreme Court case that issued the order that permitted the government to cease census operations in order to comply with deadlines to finalize and report and send the final tally numbers to the president is an erroneous decision. This is because it does not consider that accuracy and thoroughness is much more important than simply complying with the deadlines to report the data. Census operations were disrupted with the COVID-19 pandemic causing delays and even a temporary suspension of field data collection activities. Due to these unforeseen circumstances the Supreme Court should have upheld the injunction issued by the trial court, allowed the collection of information to continue and emphasized that accuracy and thoroughness of census data is preferable over submitting inaccurate and incomplete data just to meet a deadline.
While the Supreme Court’s decision seemed like it would be the last word on the 2020 Census, the Court stepped into the census fray again a few days later by agreeing to hear arguments on whether President Trump can exclude undocumented immigrants from the final 2020 census tally. President Trump’s plan is to collect two tallies – one for everyone in the U.S. and another that would leave out the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. He would then report the tally that excludes undocumented immigrants to Congress for apportionment purposes. This plan is completely flawed as it is settled American law that “persons” are to be counted and not just “citizens.” This has been borne out from the historical record as prior debates in Congress considered counting only “citizens” but those proposals were rejected in favor of counting all “persons” regardless of their citizenship. Additionally, since the usage of “persons” is established in Constitutional Amendments, President Trump’s efforts to try to unilaterally decide on his own to only count citizens is a clear violation of the separation of powers principle. Laws are made by Congress and the President can only execute the laws within the boundaries of those laws. President Trump cannot do what Congress has not authorized under law and for President Trump to decide to not count undocumented immigrants for purposes of the 2020 census is in violation of what Congress clearly intended – that all “persons” and not just “citizens” be counted. As it now heads to the highest court for review the Supreme Court should provide clarity on this issue and rein in President Trump’s actions in what look to be an end – around Congressional powers for political purposes. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage on 2020 Census.
- Brennan Center for Justice – infopage on group’s litigation efforts regarding the 2020 Census.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
The Trump Administration Threatens Hospital Funding Over COVID-19 Reporting
Brief #82 – Health and Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
The Policy
After the Trump Administration’s July announcement requiring all hospitals to submit COVID-19 data to private company, TeleTracking Technologies, exclusively sharing data with the Department of Health and Human Services, critics opposed the White House’s move to bypass the Centers for Disease Control, raising transparency concerns. However, the requirements have continued, and President Trump has become dissatisfied with the level of compliance amongst the nation’s hospitals. Such dissatisfaction has prompted an emergency rule threatening Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals’ non-compliance. Hospitals that fail to comply with federal requirements on COVID-19 and influenza data are at risk for losing U.S. funding. Hospitals will be given 14 weeks, from the late August announcement, to make adjustments and comply before enforcements take effect. Nursing homes and labs are also included under this rule and therefore subject to fines and punishments.
The information the White House wants completed is a general report on hospitals’ COVID-19 and influenza data. Among the data requested is the number of Covid-19 patients in each hospital and availability of medical equipment such as ventilators and protective gowns for employees. One of the most difficult requirements for hospitals, especially small ones, is that they are required to submit reported data every day, even on weekends. Should a hospital worker responsible for completing the form be sick or out of the hospital, partially fill out the form, or simply forget to complete the form, the hospital falls into noncompliance.
Previous to this crackdown, hospitals were participating in the voluntary reporting system, however, full compliance has been low, only 24% of hospitals reported all required elements every day. As mentioned, the Administration was not satisfied with the 86% reporting rate, by implementing this rule, Trump leaves hospitals no choice but to reach a 100% reporting rate.
Analysis:
Supporters of this rule emphasize how critical the data is in understanding the severity of the coronavirus and how central the data is for the national response to the pandemic. Seema Verma, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator, said the changes “represent a dramatic acceleration of our efforts to track and control the spread of COVID-19”.
However, withholding of Medicare and Medicaid funding would be a major blow to almost any hospital and would be too hard on the communities they serve, many experts say. For many hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid account for 40-60% of total funding and revenue. The American Hospital Association immediately denounced the rule, highlighting the risk of hospitals going out of business, and noting the penalty would be “too severe a penalty on a community”, a community that should not suffer because of subjective rules.
This rule is detrimental to the very institution serving as the American people’s first line of defense against the coronavirus. While the pursuit for COVID-19 and influenza data is just, the penalty is excessive and unnecessary. Such penalties jeopardize patient access to hospital care during a pandemic, likely resulting in widespread complications, suffering and/or deaths, which can only be exacerbated by the current pandemic.
Engagement Resources:
For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of October 17, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.
| Nation | Confirmed Cases | Deaths |
| Globally | 39,415,643 | 1,105,621 |
| United States | 8,052,978 | 218,618 |
| India | 7,432,680 | 112,998 |
| Brazil | 5,200,300 | 153,214 |
| Russia | 1,376,020 | 23,857 |
| Argentina | 965,609 | 25,723 |
| Colombia | 945,354 | 28,616 |
| Spain | 936,560 | 33,775 |
| France | 876,342 | 33,325 |
| Peru | 859,740 | 33,577 |
| Mexico | 841,661 | 85,705 |
Steven Crowder and Sam Seder’s take on the Amy Coney Barrett Nomination
The U.S. RESIST NEWS Media Blog reports on how media channels from the right and left are covering today’s news.
Blog Post # 3 Steven Crowder and Sam Seder’s take on the Amy Coney Barrett Nomination
By John McCabe
October 17, 2020
With just two weeks until the General Election, coverage of the Amy Coney Barrett hearing has dominated the web. Naturally in the online world, independent commentators on the left and right offer different viewpoints of the nomination. As the right argues that the Senate has constitutional authority to confirm Barrett, the left argues that the Senate is being hypocritical due their rejection of Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, a decision Republicans at the time claimed was valid on the basis that Supreme Court nominees should not be confirmed amid an election year.
This week, right wing commentator Steven Crowder published an episode in one of his “Change My Mind” series to YouTube, a segment where he sits at a table with a sign including the phrase “Change My Mind,” inviting people, oftentimes college students, to change his mind on a particular topic.
In his latest installment, Crowder challenge college students at Texas Christian University to change his mind on the Barrett nomination, where much of his arguments in favor of the nomination had to do with the Senate’s constitutional power.
“Merrick Garland was not confirmed by the Senate because it was a Republican Senate,” said Crowder speaking to a student named Samantha. “Donald Trump nominated A.C.B., and of course, it’s a Republican Senate, so it’s very likely she’ll be confirmed…I hear a lot of people saying ‘we feel like we should wait until the next election’ but I’m not hearing any justification…there’s no reasoning, there’s no constitutionality behind the idea that we need to wait.”
Crowder’s claim is peculiar considering the outpour of resurfaced videos of 2016 Republicans arguing why Supreme Court nominations should be postponed during an election year. Among these leaders were Sen. Lindsay Graham, who stated, “if there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ‘Lindsay Graham said let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,’ and you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.”
In an exchange with a student named Kit, Crowder added that Garland was not confirmed in 2016 due to the Senate and the Presidency being of different political parties.
“I’m not in favor of them doing it because I think it would be hypocritical of the Senate’s argument they made with Obama…” said Kit.
“No, no,” said Crowder, interrupting Kit, “their argument was that it was a split government…Their argument wasn’t just that it was an election year, their argument was that it was unprecedented in an election year to try and force a divided government to confirm…”
However, the resurfaced videos of 2016 Republicans arguing against Garland seem to be making the central argument that a new judge should not be confirmed during an election year.
On March 16, 2016, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pointed out that the Senate has the power to withhold the consent of a nomination, but not to the extent or specification that that power has anything to do with the Senate and the Presidency being of different political parties.
Nevertheless, Crowder was adamant that the opposing 2016 Senate and Presidency, even more so than a nomination taking place amid an election year, was the principal point as to why Garland’s nomination was ultimately rejected. Crowder did not go on to cite any Republicans that had made this contention their central claim in 2016 when arguing against Garland’s nomination.
Meanwhile, progressive talk show host Sam Seder of the Majority Report criticized Democratic lawmakers for attending the Barrett nomination in the first place. In Seder’s view, had the Democrats on the committee not attended the meeting, it would’ve created a message to the American people that the nomination was a sham.
“If you want to signal to the American public that something is a sham, then you don’t participate in it,” said Seder. “You have a press conference or you have some type of rally out in front of the Senate of the building, a socially distant rally, where you say, ‘We’re not going to go into that building because what they’re doing is a sham.’ You need to show, not just tell.”
Seder then speculated that a lot of Democrats are not in favor of expanding the court, even if Biden is elected. He believes that centrist Democrats are against packing the court as a political decision and that they do not want any political pressure of having to pack the court if Biden wins. His contention is that by attending the hearing, centrist Democrats are able to broadcast their reservations against Barrett without having to declare to a divided base of constituents, that would probably be in favor of packing the court if Biden wins, whether they support its expansion.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1983, Biden referred to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court decades prior as a “bonehead idea”. But despite Biden’s past reservations against packing the court, Crowder, like many other right wing pundits, has voiced worry that a Biden presidency would pack the courts. Seder, on the other hand, does not seem optimistic that Biden would pack the courts if he were elected.
“…there’s every reason to believe based upon his [Biden] history,” said Seder, “based upon the people that support him, Chris Coons, that they do not have an intention to expand the size of the court…they don’t want that political pressure…they wanted to activate people who are concerned about the A.C.A. and concerned about a woman’s right to have sovereignty over their own body…but they don’t want to activate people too, too much so that they are beholden to actually taking material, legitimate steps in the future to prevent these things from happening.”
Prior to becoming political talk show hosts, both Crowder and Seder began their careers as stand-up comedians. In the world of online punditry, they are without a doubt two of the biggest players. In the past, Seder has challenged Crowder to debate multiple times, often ridiculing Crowder for allegedly only debating college students that aren’t media trained or as politically educated.
Reportedly, Crowder backed out of a debate with Seder at Politicon 2018. At this time, Crowder has not publicly commented on the accusations that he dodged a debate with Seder, or even acknowledge that Seder had challenged him to a debate at all.
Education in the Time of Covid — Part 5: How Effective is Virtual learning?
The pandemic has forced many educational institutions to move towards virtual learning, or at least some form of distance education, in an extremely short time-frame. While this is not a new method of teaching or learning, school administrators and teachers were not prepared to sift through the resources to find the tools that might work best for E-learning on such a short notice. Nevertheless, as the pandemic moves along, schools are getting more familiar and more successful with virtual learning and Educational Technology. While EdTech certainly has a learning curve and barriers to entry due to associated costs and uncertain effects on student learning outcomes, researchers from the Brookings Institute suggest that “when schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.”
In a recent study from the Brookings Institute, researchers propose that Education Technology can be an effective tool for learners if three things are considered: context, evidence, and outcome. If technology is introduced into a classroom but other changes are not made, students and teachers may not be able to benefit from the new resources. For example, if teachers are unfamiliar with a certain tool or have not been trained on its uses, it may become a distraction or a burden on them, impacting how effective teaching and learning is for that classroom. Relying on previous studies by education researchers Cohen and Ball, Brookings suggests that in order for Educational Technology (no matter how great it is in theory) to be an effective tool for learning, it must accomplish at least one of four things: “scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons; facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring; expanding opportunities to practice; increasing learner engagement through videos and games.”
Harvard has developed a Remote Teaching site with Best Practices for Online Pedagogy that aligns with the findings of Brookings. Harvard echoes the current research and general sentiment that long lectures just won’t work with online learning, but if one facilitates engagement and provides opportunities for interaction in multiple ways, different types of online learning can be effective for all types of learners (provided they have the equipment and safe place to learn).
Overall, online learning, no matter what software or medium you use to deliver your lessons, should still follow the same principles that a teacher follows in the classroom. Consistency, setting norms, creating clear transitions, and forming discussion groups, are all things that can be done online through a video lesson or separately during specified periods. Furthermore, Zoom, which has become a mainstay for teachers adjusting to virtual learning, has pedagogical tools built in. One can use polls to assess understanding of the lesson, chat to engage students who might not normally speak up, keep an eye on all students with “gallery” view, use the “raise hand” feature to facilitate class-wide discussion, and set up “breakout rooms” for small group work. If done thoughtfully, video-based instruction can be one effective way of supporting learners.
An example of the ineffective use of technology is exemplified by a 2016 study which explored the outcomes of schools essentially replacing textbooks with laptops. Researchers found that there was a similar outcome of learning success as with books, but the costs associated with the new technology are greater. Moreover, the laptops themselves did not enhance learning necessarily — the software used and supervision of the student’s web use was found to play a large role in enhancing the usefulness of the hardware. In theory a laptop could enhance learning, but in practice it wasn’t able to accomplish one of the four things outlined by Brookings. In the push to give every student a tablet or laptop, administrators must not stop there, quality software and a plan for use must be employed to reap the benefits that technology brings.
A major area of technology in schools now is computer-adaptive learning (CAL), something often cited to be an effective learning tool for students. This method of learning uses a diagnostic test (assessment) to address what level of learning students are in, and sets the curriculum accordingly. Preliminary studies show that this can be effective for students’ learning of math and language if used in addition to regular classroom teaching — few studies have been done however, to compare CAL to classroom teaching as a total or partial replacement. One study based in China does consider the effect of CAL as a replacement for small and large group teaching programs. It assesses a program called “Squirrel AI Learning” and suggests that even when compared to students who learn the same content from expert-teachers, the learning gains from AI are greater over the course of the year, no matter what their level of learning or learning style was at the start of the study.
While schools aren’t moving towards a replacement of teachers, some of their duties can be replaced with EdTech. Some useful components of technology and E-learning involve tracking students’ progress and test scores, practicing hands on learning, and gamification which helps to keep students focused and engaged. The innovation of recording students’ homework and test scores automatically, tracking progress, and reporting it to teachers and parents is a huge help, because teachers are not able to be one-on-one with students as often as before. It also can help keep families in the loop. EdTech and computer-adaptive learning also support teachers in implementing individual learning paths for each student simultaneously — which just isn’t possible for in-person classes. This is especially useful for teachers during Covid as they have new issues that they need to focus on.
Late in 2019, the New York Times reported on machine-learning programs such as Bakpax and Acuitus. The machine-learning revolution has been a game changer for the E-learning movement — instead of assessing a student’s learning level by moving them along a pre-set decision tree, machine-learning uses large sets of (ever-growing) data to create a “smarter” algorithm that can profile a student’s learning level and set it on the right path. Additionally, simple acts like grading homework and providing the right answers and more practice in certain areas can be automated. But even more importantly, the algorithm can use the data to assess patterns in the class’s lack of knowledge, so teachers know where to focus. While these innovations hold a lot of potential, there are concerns around where this student data goes and how much privacy students and schools can expect. For now, student data is protected and encrypted to ensure students their right to privacy.
Virtual learning might be effective for students if implemented well, but concerns have been raised about Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities, as virtual support is just not effective for everyone. Students deserve education that works for them, they also deserve to be safe and not exposed to a deadly virus — this is a tricky situation to navigate but efforts are being made to ensure that parents are kept in the loop and that students with disabilities are not being deprived of their rights to quality support and education whether in-person or through digital means.
In addition to the quality and measured success of particular E-learning programs themselves for certain subsets of students, some propose that the effectiveness of E-learning might be tied into perspective on E-learning in the first place. If school administrators and families see E-learning as a temporary fix to a temporary pandemic, then efforts to master it will be scarce — instead administrators and leaders must prioritize making it work well for all students and be willing to innovate and make virtual learning a viable option and not just a band-aid until “normal” school starts again.
Virtual Learning must not seek to replace the 7-hour school day and classroom experience, studies show that it just isn’t feasible. What is feasible is school districts prioritizing spending time to assess their situation and resources, using existing data to inform their approach to virtual learning and/or hybrid learning, and choose E-learning methods that have proven results. Additionally, having a plan for every mode of learning is key, as Covid is likely not going anywhere for the rest of the school year.
Resistance Resources
International Society for Technology in Education — Check out ISTE’s site to find resources and background on uses of Tech in Education. Use their action tools to get in touch with your representatives about approving legislation and funding for teacher professional development or technology in the classroom, or share petitions and information via social media.
National Council for Online Education — This group of partners is a collaboration of organizations that advocate for well-planned, research-based, and effective online learning. Get connected with them and their partners to learn more and get involved.
Student Voice — This organization brings students and school communities together to fight for student rights under the Student Bill of Rights. Check out their site for resources to organize, learn, and connect with a local group to get involved in fighting to ensure that all students receive quality education in whatever appropriate, effective format during the Covid pandemic.
Sources:
- Brookings – How can Educational Technology Work for All?
- National Bureau of Economic Research: Books or Laptops?
- Education Dive – IEPs and Remote Learning
- Detroit Free Press – It’s Not Too Late to Make this School Year Better
- Forbes – AI and Impact on Learning
- New York Times – AI and Learning
- Tech Crunch – Ed Tech is Surging
- Harvard – Best Practices: Online Pedagogy
- Interactive Learning Environments – When Adaptive Learning is Effective Learning
- Education Week – Artificial Intelligence in K-12
- MIT: J-PAL Review of 126 studies on EdTech
The Rise of White Nationalist Militias
With a general election looming, there is a lot of debate on whether or not the results of the election will incite violence. Since Donald Trump took office as President just four years ago, a lot has changed. One of the most concerning changes is the phenomenon of white nationalist militias coming out of the woodwork. Throughout 2020, private militias were antagonizing Black Lives Matters protesters with sometimes deadly consequences. More recently, there was a plot by right-wing extremist group Wolverine Watchmen to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam due to their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the plan was exposed and while thirteen men total were arrested, six were specifically charged with planning to kidnap Whitmer and Northam. Besides the troubling situation with plotting to kidnap sitting governors, it has also been hypothesized that these right-wing militias will likely show up to the polls in certain states on Election Day. They will probably be armed and ready to intimidate others if they deem it necessary. While some groups claim they do not wish to harm anyone and only want to curb civil unrest, it can be seen that many of these groups have already engaged in violence.
These bold moves by white nationalist militia groups are not only a potential threat to the integrity of the upcoming election, but also to our democracy as a whole. Often, these right-wing militias disobey laws to achieve their goals and create more civil unrest in the process. There is the question of whether or not these civilian-formed militias are even legal. The answer to that is a bit complicated; people with extreme views are allowed to create a group off of those shared political views and call themselves a “militia.” However, all fifty states prohibit “private, unauthorized militias and military units from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities,” according to Georgetown University Law Center. This is exactly what we have seen pop up lately: armed civilians who are untrained in formal law enforcement attempting to do the job of legitimate law enforcement. When this happens, tragedy often strikes, as was the case with 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch, IL. His involvement with right-wing militia Boogaloo Bois during the Kenosha protests ended up being deadly and he is now being charged for the murder of two out of the three protesters that he shot. Citizens have a right to defend themselves under the Second Amendment, but self-defense is not what we see these militias engaging in. Instead, we see them engaging in outright vigilantism, acting as a paramilitary unit.
The brazen actions of these right-wing nationalist militias should concern American citizens, as there is the potential for more violence as the election approaches. The FBI has arrested about 120 people on domestic terrorism suspicions this year, many of which were members of white supremacist or anti-government groups. It is clear that these groups now feel comfortable enough to come out of the woodwork and showcase themselves. Members of these groups know that laws against private militias are rarely enforced, and our own President refuses to condemn their existence. During a presidential debate, President Trump even told white supremacist group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” to deal with ANTIFA, which is a reflection of his attitude in general over the past four years. It is no wonder these groups continue to assemble and emerge, as they feel they have the support of our country’s “leader.” While these white nationalist militias grow in membership, what we need is a leader who will condemn their existence to protect our democracy and preserve law and order.
Resistance Resources:
- Click here to read about a bill introduced this year to help curb domestic terrorism in the U.S.
- To learn more about the rise of these militia groups, visit the Anti-Defamation League webpage.
The Corruption of Ivanka Trump
The Corruption Blog digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
The image Ivanka Trump presents of herself is that of a hard working entrepreneur whose lifestyle brand aligns with the values of her generation. In reality, she is far closer to a younger, female version of her old man. Her business and political career are nearly a mirror of Donald Trump’s. Be it a Trump property, or a presidency, the presentation is rife bombast and glitz, promising to deliver a superior product. Reality seldom bears this out.
Prior to her appointment to Senior Adviser to the President, Ivanka had almost no work history outside the family business. Her overseas experience amounted to an effort to develop a failed Trump-branded property in the Azerbaijan. Trump Tower Baku was backed by corrupt oligarchs in the country’s government. Ivanka personally oversaw the development, even posting a picture of herself in a hard hat on her website. The project remains unfinished and is suspected of being a venue exclusively for the purpose of money laundering. No evidence exists that the Trump Organization was actively involved in wrongdoing, but the company may have run afoul of the law through taking a deliberate blind eye towards illicit practices. This experience hardly qualifies her to be an individual tasked with representing the US internationally.
Keeping with family tradition, Ivanka was actively engaged with fraud at the Trump SoHo project. Units at the property were in high-demand, or so said Ivanka at an event to promote the residences; she claimed publicly that over 60% of units in the yet to be opened property were sold when questioned in 2010. Per emails between her and Donald Trump Jr, obtained by Manhattan’s DA office, this was a blatant fabrication. Roughly 16% of units had sold and the building was hemorrhaging money. It was a case of demonstrable fraud, which was inexplicably not prosecuted. Conduct of this sort could and should preclude an individual from working so close to the seat of power. In the Trump administration it seems to be a a prerequisite.
Her years of duplicitous behavior and coasting on the family name prepared her nicely for her current role in the Executive Branch. From the start of her appointment Ivanka courted controversy and accusations of nepotism. She was given a West Wing office without an official position, which potentially exposed her to classified material without the property security clearances. The situation was ‘’remedied’’ when she was officially hired and put through the formal vetting process.
US consumers and businesses were adversely affected by higher prices as a result of President Trump’s bungled trade war with China. His daughter came out ahead. Clothing to and from China were excluded from addition tariffs, which meant none of Ivanka’s lifestyle brand would be more expensive to consumers. There may well have been other considerations that factored into the decision, but it is yet another instance of a family member insulated from the harm caused by Trump’s slap-dash policies. Additionally, while the two super-powers exchanged internecine rhetoric and economic measure, Ivanka, through her ease of access was able to secure multiple patents from the Chinese government for her various consumer products.
These and other business holdings raised conflicts of interest loud enough to force Ivanka to shutter her company’s operation. At the time (June 2018) she told reporters her namesake brand would be ceasing operations entirely in order for her to focus on her responsibilities in Washington. Ever a chip off the old block, her deeds have failed to match her words. Despite insinuating that she did not now know if or when she would be returning to the business world, she continued to acquire patents for the allegedly defunct outfit. 16 more patents from China have been issued to her company as well as ones from Japan and Argentina since she was said to have shut it all down. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and Washington obtained her most recent financial disclosure, which revealed that last year she received between 100K and 1M in income from her company. Her merchandise is still available on Amazon, which could be remaining inventory, or products made and sold by others with Ivanka’s blessing. Either way, all signs point to Ivanka Trump continuing to profit off a business pre-dating her time in the White House after telling the world it was closed. It’s hard to fathom a more Trumpian disassociation between words and actions.
The recent New York Times story on the president’s taxes present the picture of a desperate real estate mogul engaged in long-term tax fraud. Ivanka was not spared. Among the many revelations in the piece were that Ivanka had been paid $747,000 as an outside consultant on Trump properties in Vancouver and Hawaii. That is problematic as she was already a high-ranking executive of the company and therefore would need not be paid as such. The criminal implication comes into focus with the development that the amount she was paid corresponds exactly to a deduction Trump wrote off on the projects. As Ivanka was already employed by the company doing the business, there would be no legitimate reason for doing so other than illicit avoiding of federal taxes. If substantiated, the detail could land in Ivanka in serious legal trouble should Trump lose November’s election.
Donald Trump has said he loves nepotism. He should, he’s been a beneficiary of the practice since he was his father’s landlord at five years old. It has benefited his daughter, who lived off the family name in the private sector before continuing to do so from the friendly confines of her father’s White House
The Corona Virus Crisis Women in the Labor Force
Policy
Women are leaving the workforce at a rate four times than that of men. There are two alarming trends affecting women in the labor force as a consequence of the corona virus. The first impacts lower wage workers and concerns the dramatic rate of unemployment among women and especially Latinas. The second trend pertains to women with higher education and the increasing rate at which they are dropping out of the workforce largely due to childcare needs.
In recent economic downturns, until the covid era, recessions were more pronounced in their effects on male employment earning them the title of mancessions. With the covid era that has changed. Sixty percent of jobs lost, at the onset of the virus, were to women. In December 2019, women were 50.04% of the labor force, making them more than half of the labor force for the first time in a decade. In April, the labor force participation for women was the lowest it has been since 1986. Between February and April women’s unemployment increased by 12.8% compared to 9.9% for males. Between August and September 1.1 million people left the labor market. Women comprised the highest portion of this group at 800,000 including 324,000 Latinas and 58,000 African Americans. Job losses were more pronounced in industries which hire a disproportionate number of women. These include service work, production work, restaurant work, and some health care occupations. These affect all women and especially women of color. These women are least likely to be able to work at home and most likely to lose jobs. Their unemployment is likely to outlive the recession. In Sun Belt states this has hit really hard among Latinas. These include Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona which have the highest concentration of Latinx populations. It is hard to say how long it will take for these jobs to be reinstated or if they actually will be. For some, unemployment payments, augmented by the federal CARES program, were literally lifesaving but that aid ended July 31st and there is no new program on the horizon. The consequences for the community are dire, especially for single women headed households with minor children.
For professional women the situation is more voluntary in that women are opting out of the labor force due to caregiving requirements related to childcare and homeschooling. Women are more likely than their male partners to quit working because more often they make the lower salary. Cultural expectations still also play a role in the burden placed on women. When women are still working they perform 15 hours more childcare duties than their partners. It is too stressful and they are bending under the weight. The problem is not only that they are the ones likely to sacrifice working for now but that their departure from the labor force will have long ranging consequences both for women and for the economy. Women in mid professional careers are on a trajectory where they are more likely to be promoted. If this window is missed they are in jeopardy of losing those opportunities permanently. Women who leave professional jobs are at high risk for never replacing them at the same level and/or for sacrificing their future gains. This will create a situation in which the income gains of women, hard won in recent decades, will regress and likely not recoup for some time. These millennial women also suffered setbacks during the great recession.
Analysis
To address the problem of the lower wage workers, the solution is pretty straight forward. The federal government must create a CARES program to help those in dire need. This is not a time for partisan shenanigans. The need is clear and the response should be swift and compassionate. In addressing the concerns of women opting out of professional jobs, the employers need to institute very specific programs which will allow for recruiting women back into positions comparable to those vacated. Flexible scheduling, remote opportunities, and programs to facilitate promotion can be elaborated by human resources departments. This is not a matter of giving women (or men in the same position) special treatment but of compensating for very real biases in employment world and in the gendered nature which persists in society. This is not just a way to help specific women but of supporting the economy. It is estimated that the unemployment of women has cost the economy 341 billion dollars so far.
Learn More
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/us/jobs-women-dropping-out-workforce-wage-gap-gender.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/economy/women-quitting-work-child-care/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/how-coronavirus-could-do-long-term-damage-to-womens-careers.html
https://www.epi.org/publication/latinx-workers-covid/
Resources
https://www.crisistextline.org/ National crisis hotline. It will connect you with local counties which can provide local information on rent assistance, food aid, mental health, suicide, housing, healthcare.
How Foreign Countries Are Hacking the US Election
Policy Summary:
Although some of us may have missed it with all of the covid-19 news, in early August, U.S. intelligence reported to Congress that Russia, China, and Iran are attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Russia appears to be launching the largest offensive, with China and Iran making smaller, more limited incursions. Both sides of the aisle have now turned the report into an excuse for partisan grandstanding and factional ammunition. Democrats have used the report as further evidence that Trump is Putin’s desired candidate. Republicans have fired back with the fact that Biden is Iran and China’s desired candidate.
However, in the cases of China and Iran, it is wholly over-simplifying to say that they are running the same manner of interference as Russia. Facebook’s head of security has said that on their platform, the accounts linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were more focused on generating an audience and then dividing said audience rather than supporting Biden in particular. Beijing certainly favors Biden, but their backing seems less concerted than Russia’s support for Trump. This may be due to Biden’s hardline statements against CCP human rights violations in Xinjiang or the fact that he is viewed more favorably by other democratic nations, threatening coalition-building potential. China’s efforts are also largely focused on political issues specifically related to Chinese business interests. For instance, the TikTok ban, the closure of Chinese consulates over accusations of industrial espionage, and resistance against Huawei’s 5G network. And for Iran, although the efforts certainly favor Biden, they appear to be more focused on encouraging mistrust in public institutions and circulating anti-American content than expressly denigrating Trump.
Compare this to Russian efforts, which have been the long-term continuation of the weaponization of social media through deep fakes, bot farms, disinformation, and trolling to support the Trump campaign since the 2016 election. Although Trump’s administration and the Republican party’s record on Russia has been largely harsh, Trump has personally expressed positive rhetoric and admiration for Putin. In addition, Biden was involved in anti-Russian policies based upon the invasion of Ukraine and pro-Putin opposition under the Obama administration.
Analysis:
It would appear that China and Russia are the key players in this election interference, with Iran played a subordinate role. Chinese efforts have been defined as being different from Russian. Although China is currently following Russia’s lead in weaponizing social media platforms, some worry that it may choose to follow a soft-power strategy that has shown promise in Australia and is far harder to combat under a democratic framework. In Australia, Chinese immigrants with connections to the CCP were found donating large sums of money to pro-Beijing political campaigns and attempting to influence Chinese-language media, civic groups, and on university campuses. These efforts are largely conducted through proxies and brushed aside by Beijing with rebuttals of plausible deniability. China has been promoting a positive public image in the U.S. for years through personal exchanges, relationships with American business leaders, retaliatory threats, lobbying, disinformation campaigns, and more.
All of this partisan mud-slinging obscures the real issue, however. To put it simply, Iran, China, and Russia are attempting to realize political outcomes in the U.S. that are advantageous to their respective regimes while concurrently damaging and ultimately shattering ordinary American’s faith in their public institutions. They appear to be succeeding, although the degree to which this is due to foreign interference is debatable. Doubt has been cast on the electoral process and this threatens all of us. Democracy is built upon confidence in the voting system and the integrity of public institutions, and to be frank, we were already on shaky ground due to controversy over the electoral college and big money’s influence on political outcomes.
In addition, we as liberals should not be downplaying China and Iran’s efforts to support the Biden campaign in favor of spotlighting Russia and Trump. These practices, no matter the source, should not be normalized or seen as less dangerous than Russian exertions. It also distracts from real infrastructure problems facing the coming 2020 election, such as the lack of poll workers and the weakening of the U.S. postal service’s capacity.
Despite the threat to our elections, however, U.S. intelligence sources have reiterated that it is unlikely that America’s enemies abroad can currently manipulate voting to the point of altering true results. The U.S. has greatly improved its cyber election defenses since 2016 and much of the public is aware of the threat from foreign interference. The bulk of disinformation is actually coming from domestic sources rather than abroad, with mostly right-wing sources copying and employing tactics made popular by Russia in 2016. This is probably a far greater threat than foreign interference, as social media companies cannot easily clamp down on private citizens within the U.S. who claim that they are simply disseminating their political opinions.
Resistance Resources:
- Rand Corporation – more information on voter consensus and the importance of public trust
- Center for American Progress – discussion of Russian foreign interference in the 2016 elections and how we should approach interference in 2020
