JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election
The Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election Technology Policy Brief #122 | By: Mindy Spatt | December 21, 2024 Photo by Element5 Digital __________________________________ SUMMARY Just how big was the impact of disinformation on the election of Donald...
A New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration
A New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration Elections & Politics #140 | By: Nicholas Gordon | December 12, 2024 Photo by Carlos Herrero __________________________________ Summary For a...
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom Foreign Policy Brief #171 | By: Damian DeSola | December 8, 2024 Photo by Pyae Sone Htun on Unsplash __________________________________ On February 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, forcefully overthrew the...
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education Education Policy Brief #95 | By: Evan Wechman | December 08, 2024 Photo by Pixabay __________________________________ Policy Summary: With President-elect Donald Trump preparing to make radical changes from United...
What Will Trump Administration Policy Towards Ukraine Look Like?
What Will Trump Administration Policy Towards Ukraine Look Like? Foreign Policy Brief #170 | By: Yelena Korshunov | December 6, 2024 Photo by Markus Spiske __________________________________ The US presidential election results have been met with mixed feelings in...
The United Nations in Today’s World
The United Nations in Today's World Foreign Policy Brief #169 | By: Ibrahim Castro | December 6, 2024 Photo by Hugo Magalhaes __________________________________ The United Nations (UN) is the world's largest international organization, it was founded on October 24,...
The Post-Election State of Abortion
The Post-Election State of Abortion Health & Gender Brief #177 | By: Geoffrey Small | November 26, 2024 Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash __________________________________ Summary As the Republican party seizes control of Congress and The Presidency, abortion...
From Election to Inauguration: How Political Power Gets Transferred in the United States
From Election to Inauguration: How Political Power Gets Transferred in the United States Elections & Politics #139 | By: Arvind Salem | November 30, 2024 Photo by Srikanta H. U on Unsplash __________________________________ Policy Issue Summary The peaceful...
Immigrants vs. the Trump Administration: Part 2:”First They Came for the Immigrants”: Parallels Between Trump’s Immigration Policies and the Early Rise of Nazi Ideology
Immigrants vs. the Trump Administration: Part 2:"First They Came for the Immigrants": Parallels Between Trump’s Immigration Policies and the Early Rise of Nazi Ideology Immigration #137 | By: Morgan Davidson | November 26, 2024 US RESIST NEWS has asked Morgan...
Losing the Other Georgia: Democracy is on Defense
Losing the Other Georgia: Democracy is on Defense
Foreign Policy #167 | By: Damian DeSola | November 18, 2024
__________________________________
On October 26th, the small country of Georgia, wedged between Türkiye and Russia, held a parliamentary election. The results are 53% for Georgian Dream and 38% for the united opposition. While this seems routine for the four-year cycle of parliamentary elections in Georgia, there is a marked difference this year. Exit polling analysis that shows inconsistencies with the reported outcome has resulted in the opposition parties and the Georgian President, Salome Zourabichvili, contesting the election results. Their argument is bolstered by reports of ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and cases of violent activity near polling stations; many election observers believe that the reported results are invalid.
Georgian Dream was established by an oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, and has held power in the Georgian government since 2012. During their tenure as the ruling party, they have faced backlash from Georgian citizens, the European Union, and the United States, for passing legislation that is laden with pro-Russian sentiment.
Earlier this year, the fears of Georgia’s authoritarian swing were confirmed by independent observers, causing the EU to halt Georgia’s accession process. This came after a highly controversial law introduced by Georgian Dream which declared Western media outlets and NGOs as “foreign agents.” The law is similar to one passed in Russia that is used to stifle free speech and allows the central government to target its domestic enemies; reacting to this law, young Georgians took to the streets of Tbilisi from April 15 th to June 5 th of 2024.
Western nations have become vocal in their skepticism of the election results, with heads of state across Europe, along with U.S. Secretary of State Blinken, rejecting the result and calling for an investigation. The Georgian President met with an envoy from the EU to discuss the election, with both the envoy and President agreeing that the results are illegitimate. Concurrently, Georgian Dream leadership has refused to meet with the envoy.
The leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Hungary, all illiberal states, have congratulated Georgian Dream for their election win. While the European Union, United States, and the Georgian President all have declared this election to be undemocratic.
This pattern has become a mainstay of illiberal parties that have control over their electoral systems. By making false results look real, illiberal parties can claim legitimacy that is difficult to legally contest due to internal manipulation. The most blatant example of this was in Belarus, where hugely unpopular Viktor Lukashenko somehow won his most recent election with a little over 80% of the vote. Massive unrest in the country flared up and was brutally quelled by internal security forces.
Analysis
If one were to guess whether democracy would win in this scenario, they would look at the recent trends of geopolitics and say, decidedly, no. Unfortunately, with such proximity to Russia and vulnerability as a democracy, the chances of Georgia remaining liberal are slim. There is a chance that the EU envoy could succeed in their investigation and repeat the election, but without well-established political and bureaucratic mechanisms to do so, the EU’s ability to launch a base of influence in this affair will be troublesome.
This leaves the scenario of Georgia leaning, and possibly falling, into the hands of solid Russian influence as a clear possibility. With uncontested power, the Georgian Dream party will ban opposition parties and begin mass repression of discontent. They will also begin negotiations with Russia to settle the matter of the two occupied regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which will likely be in favor of cemented Russian ownership of the rightfully Georgian land. The chances of European Union admittance will be all but a memory, and the freedom of the Georgian people will be another casualty in this battle between democracy and autocracy. What’s more, a large swath of Middle Eastern and West Asian territory will have been vacated of any solid Western democratic influence.
What does this all mean for the overall grand strategy of the democratic West? To put it bluntly, we are on the back foot. While it was a valiant showing of strength to support Ukraine, even that has become a struggle for Western democracies to continue. We have come to the dismal point where the most we can celebrate is a democracy functioning properly in the face of the growing influence of autocrats. The fight is in our backyard and yet we refuse to acknowledge the dangers of our situation. This election in Georgia will come and go, and we as the West will watch idly by once again to watch a democracy fall into autocratic hands.
The United States will be difficult to rely upon after the election of Donald Trump. The preference for isolationist and nationalist policy will result in active ignorance on behalf of the new administration to the plight of democratic backsliding nations like Georgia. Since the American relationship with Georgia is entirely founded on values rather than economic or military cooperation, a Trump administration will be uninterested in aiding them against Russian influence.
Those who remain in the democratic West need to start taking this more seriously. Efforts by malign actors to take advantage of each democracy’s flaws are becoming more successful each time they happen. Their ability to mask their activities and disguise democratic losses as simple failures of the system undermines the ability of democratic processes to occur. Thereby damaging the popularity of democracy as a form of government worldwide.
To defend against autocrats, citizens of democratic countries along with the remaining liberal governments must begin to organize and coordinate. Only by putting aside our national, political, and personal differences for the sake of directly confronting authoritarian threats, does liberty and democracy stand a chance. In these trying times, the best we can do is consolidate and chart a path forward.
Engagement Resources
- The Friedrich Naumann Foundation is a German organization that promotes liberalism around
the world with a focus on Europe. - Freedom House rates the levels of political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and
territories around the world.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A Congratulatory Letter to President Trump
A Congratulatory Letter to President Trump
November OP-ED | By: Ron Israel & the U.S. Resist News Staff | November 2024
Featured Photo: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
__________________________________
Dear President Trump—Congratulations on your victory in the Presidential election. Although many Americans did not vote for you, there were enough people that did that you won the election. Now you have the challenge of leading our great country and we wish you well. Please remember that you are now the leader of all our people, and not just those who voted for you. Because of that we hope you will consider to address the following needs that affect all Americans.
- The needs of America’s working class for fair and equitable tax policies, health policies that reduce the cost of care, childcare policies that enable women and men to work and raise a family, housing policies that enable everyone to have the opportunity to own their own home.
- The needs of American women to have control over their own bodies and have access to maternal and reproductive health care, including abortion.
- The needs of America’s minorities (black, Latino, Native American, and Asian Pacific American peoples) to have access to equal economic and legal opportunities.
- The needs of America’s youth to have a quality education, free from the terror of school shootings and violence; an education that prepares them with the knowledge and skills they need to contribute to the twentieth century workforce, and the understanding of our system of government that enables them to become contributing citizens to our democratic society.
- The need for all of us to benefit from having a clean environment and a world that is free from climate change.
- The need for our country to support the productive use of technology while also curtailing its harmful use; and to support a free and open media that reports on all sides of the news but does not promote misinformation.
- The need for America to continue to play a leadership role in the world; to champion universal human rights, cooperation rather than conflict between countries, the strengthening of international agencies that support our democratic values, and promote the just ends to conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, and Ukraine.We should allow our borders to remain open to the legal entry of those from other countries seeking asylum and a better life, and who help strengthen us with their skills and cultures.
- The needs of our democratic system must be protected by a program to strengthen voting rights for all Americans, getting rid of big money in politics, and ensuring a peaceful transfer of power from election to election. We must preserve the right of all Americans to worship as they please and to peacefully protest policies they believe to be unjust. We understand that you probably don’t agree with all the concerns raised in this letter, that you have your own priorities. But we know that you are a person who has been through a lot to become President and, in your words, “make America great again.”
Therefore, we urge you to consider what we believe to be some of our country’s most important needs as described in this letter,and address them in the policies and actions of your administration. That will help ensure that you will go down in our history as a great President, a President who improved life for all Americans.
Best Wishes for a Successful Presidency,
The US RESIST NEWS Editorial Team
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Facing a New Political Reality: Am I the “Enemy Within?”
Facing a New Political Reality: Am I the “Enemy Within?”
Elections & Politics #137 | By: Morgan Davidson| November 6, 2024
Featured Photo by: Rosemary Ketchum on Pexels
__________________________________
Most of my life, I’ve enjoyed the benefits of safety and comfort. When I’ve been pulled over by the police, I never feared for my life—though I felt anxious because I hate being in trouble. My parents had instructed me on what to do in these situations, but they never warned me to fear an officer might draw a weapon.
I’ve never felt afraid to walk down the street at night, whether in my small hometown, on my college campus, or in metro areas. I’m proud to say that I was an All-State football player in Texas, and my size has always helped me feel secure. Yet, I often walk with my wife, colleagues, and other American women who, unlike me, do feel unsafe in these spaces.
As a Ph.D. student who recently passed my comps and defended my thesis, I am now a Ph.D. candidate—a milestone I’m proud of. Although my academic achievements have been rewarding, I now wonder what they mean for me, my family, and fellow Americans who deeply believe in democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental decency.
“We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries.”
“If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country, and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”
“He’s talking about anyone who doesn’t support him or who will not bend to his will as an enemy of our country.”
As a proud Harris-Walz voter, I am far from a radical leftist, Communist, or Socialist, and certainly not a fascist. Yet, in the return to Donald Trump’s America, I know I am perceived as all of these things.
I have pleaded with family members, social media followers, and readers of my writing to make a choice that would protect my rights as a prospective father, husband, and American. Despite my efforts, particularly with those closest to me, I’ve fallen short. Now, in Trump’s America, I find myself labeled an “enemy from within.”
In an unsettling way, I feel relief that Trump won, as his victory may mean less violence, less risk to lives, and no repeat of January 6th. Yet I am deeply afraid of what his victory represents for people like me—those who believe in democracy, defend our institutions, and trust that America can be a place for all creeds, races, religions, and political beliefs.
As this so-called “enemy from within,” I can assure you that I will not advocate for reversing the election results. I will not suggest that Vice President Kamala Harris has a constitutional obligation to overturn the results, and I will not violently challenge the outcome in January. Ask yourself: would the candidate you supported uphold these core principles of democracy had they lost?
In my hometown, I’ve seen Facebook posts calling for the public release of voter records and for Democratic voters to be prosecuted for treason. Although Trump hasn’t explicitly stated this, he has hinted at it, calling out “enemies from within” and suggesting military action against people like me. Supporting Trump doesn’t mean endorsing every part of his agenda, but for those of us who supported Harris, for families who migrated to escape cartel violence, for those who cherish freedom, and for academics, it raises a troubling question: Are we now seen as threats? Hopefully not; hopefully, it was just campaign rhetoric—but time will tell.
Even if Trump supporters didn’t agree with every part of his platform, the dangers his rhetoric and its violent consequences—especially on January 6th—were not deal breakers for them. The personal risks his movement poses to people like me, my family, and others who value democratic principles were ultimately outweighed by other priorities in the minds of those who voted for him.
Engagement Resources
- Here is a fact check on the enemy from within- https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/oct/30/trump-is-talking-more-about-the-enemy-from-within/
- You can see Vances comments on Universities here- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/07/16/trump-taps-jd-vance-sharp-critic-higher-ed-vp
- 2024 election results can be found here- https://apnews.com/ap-elections-explained
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Three
The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Three
Civil Rights Policy Brief #232 | By: Rod Maggay | October 30, 2024
Featured Photo by: Unseen Histories on Unsplash
__________________________________
In the first part of this series on the right to vote in the United States, we examined the source of the right to vote found in the U.S. Constitution and how the constitutional framework with regards to voting has been incomplete. We additionally examined some of the constitutional amendments that have been passed to try and remedy some of those gaps. The third part in this series will examine how voters themselves, and not the federal or state governments, have tried to remedy the issue of controversial voting rights in the U.S. (You can read the first two Briefs in this series on the Civil Rights US RESIST NEWS archive page).
Policy Summary: While much attention and focus has been on the constitutional amendments and what the federal government and individual state legislatures have tried to do to protect and expand voting rights, the issue at times has been led by individual voters themselves. Instead of waiting for sometimes reluctant legislatures to do something or having another catastrophic event prompt the government to act (e.g. the Civil War), voters have at times tried to utilize the referendum or the initiative process to enact laws to sometimes grant the right to vote and to protect the right to vote that had been granted to minority and racial groups. The issue was placed in the hands of voters with many state legislatures and entities sometimes having no say on the matter until a vote was taken.
The initiative and referendum process in the states vary considerably but have some common elements. The initiative process permits citizens to either collect signatures or craft a petition to implement a new statute or constitutional amendment. If there are enough signatures (state law defines the minimum signatures required) or the petition is accepted, the proposed law or amendment is placed on the ballot. Voters then vote to decide whether the proposed law should be passed or not. If it is passed the proposed law or amendment is added to the law code or state constitution and has the same force of law if the law had been passed by the state legislature. The referendum process is similar. If enough signatures are acquired or a petition is accepted, a measure is placed on a ballot for voters to decide whether to retain or remove an enacted state law. Not all states have an initiative and referendum process and there is no comparable process that is used at the federal government level. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw many initiative and ballot measures placed on state ballots over a wide – range of issues. As an example, when it came to women’s voting rights, it appeared as a ballot measure over fifty – four times in nearly 30 separate states between 1867 and 1920 prior to the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, which constitutionally guaranteed to women the right to vote. What this illustrates is that the issue of the right to vote did not have to wait for the state legislature or the federal government to do something to advance. Voters could take their aspirations into their own hands and let voters decide instead of leaving it to reluctant legislators who would often try to stonewall. While not all of the women’s suffrage ballot measures passed, fifteen did pass which permitted women in fifteen separate states the right to vote. The number may not seem that many but passage of these ballot measures in these states laid the foundation for the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
This background is important because the use of the ballot measure in regards to voting rights is being used widely today and not always in a positive way. In 2022, there were a number of ballot measures that were placed on the ballot in a number of states that sought to restrict access to the right to vote, likely in response to Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. When asked to vote on controversial voter access proposals, voters in Arizona flatly rejected strict new voter ID requirements. In Michigan, voters approved new expanded voter access policies for their state constitution. And in Connecticut the same year, voters approved a new no – excuse early voting policy.
However, 2024 will see a number of ballot measures that could restrict access to the ballot box. In Wisconsin, a ballot measure would seek to change language in the state constitution that would allow only citizens to vote in Wisconsin elections. And in North Carolina, a 2024 battleground state, a ballot measure is on the ballot to clarify language in the state constitution there that non – citizens are not permitted to vote. In total for 2024, including Wisconsin and North Carolina, there are eight states that have a ballot measure seeking to limit voting in elections to citizens only, very likely fueled by Donald Trump’s unfounded claims that immigrants and non – citizens are voting in significant numbers. So, while initiatives, referendums and ballot measures have given voters the ability to have a say on issues important to them, like voting rights, there is still a danger that the process can be abused by those who want to implement measures that could have the unintended consequences of suppressing the vote and disenfranchising more people than necessary, even some citizens. As Election Day nears, it is up to voters again to take issue into their own hands and come out and vote down these “citizen only voting” ballot measures and demonstrate that state legislatures and the federal government don’t have to take the lead when it comes to voting rights – there are tools for voters to take charge on the issues important to them, too. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
-
State Court Report – more info on how voting rights are handled by the states and the role the initiative and referendum process has in that.
-
Ballotpedia – a history of the women’s suffrage ballot measures in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
The Rising Influence of E-Sports on Traditional Sports
The Rising Influence of E-Sports on Traditional Sports
Social Justice Policy Brief #169 | By: Inijah Quadri | November 01, 2024
Featured Photo: Yan Krukau on Pexels.
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
In the last decade, e-sports—also known as electronic sports or organized video game competitions that resemble traditional sports in their structure—has surged in popularity, evolving from a niche subculture into a mainstream industry. What was once viewed as recreational gaming has transformed into an organized, competitive ecosystem with millions of viewers and substantial revenues. With global tournaments such as The International for Dota 2 or the League of Legends World Championship, e-sports attracts millions of viewers, rivaling traditional sporting events in terms of engagement, fan loyalty, and economic potential. This rapid growth is particularly evident among younger demographics, posing both opportunities and challenges for traditional sports.
As e-sports continues to gain momentum, it is reshaping how sports and entertainment industries approach fan engagement, sponsorship, and media rights. While traditional sports like soccer, basketball, and football still dominate in terms of cultural significance and overall revenue, e-sports is closing the gap, particularly in attracting younger, digitally-oriented audiences. The rise of streaming platforms such as Twitch and YouTube has made e-sports a global phenomenon, allowing fans to watch live events and interact with players in real-time, a feature that traditional sports are only beginning to emulate.
Analysis
E-sports has experienced an explosion in viewership and economic growth, which is beginning to influence traditional sports. Major e-sports tournaments have surpassed some traditional sports in viewership, especially among the coveted 18–34-year-old demographic. For instance, the 2022 League of Legends World Championship attracted over 5 million concurrent viewers, a number that rivals major sporting events. This shift in viewership highlights how younger audiences are increasingly gravitating toward digital sports, potentially diminishing the long-standing dominance of traditional sports.
One of the key factors driving e-sports’ growth is its accessibility and global appeal. Unlike traditional sports, which often require specific physical skills, e-sports is open to a much wider audience. Players from around the world can compete online, with no geographical or physical limitations. This has allowed e-sports to cultivate a diverse, international fan base. Moreover, the social and interactive nature of platforms like Twitch has made watching e-sports a more immersive experience, where fans can directly engage with players, creating a stronger sense of community than many traditional sports offer.
__________________________________
Short Simulation of an E-Sports Contest Experience:
Picture an arena buzzing with energy, fans on their feet as two teams get ready to clash in an intense e-sports showdown. The countdown begins, and the announcer’s voice fills the space, raising the tension. As the clock hits zero, players dive into action, each controlling a unique character with skills that could make or break their team. The crowd is fixated on giant screens, reacting to every close call and daring move. One player sees an opening, makes a split-second decision, and executes a perfect ambush. The opposing team is caught off-guard, and the audience explodes with cheers and applause. This electrifying atmosphere and connection is exactly what draws so many back to e-sports, time and time again.
__________________________________
However, traditional sports still maintain advantages in revenue and sponsorships. The global sports market is valued well over that of the current e-sports market. Despite the massive growth in e-sports sponsorship, traditional sports continue to secure more lucrative deals. For instance, athletes in major sports leagues like the NFL or NBA often have endorsement deals worth millions of dollars, while top e-sports players are only beginning to catch up in terms of sponsorship opportunities.
Traditional sports leagues are not sitting idly by, though. Many are recognizing the influence of e-sports and are incorporating elements of competitive gaming into their operations. The NBA’s creation of the NBA 2K League, for example, illustrates how sports organizations are trying to bridge the gap between physical sports and e-sports to engage younger audiences.
Despite these innovations, the challenges traditional sports face include their reliance on older viewership demographics and the slower adaptation to digital and interactive media. In contrast, e-sports is rapidly professionalizing, with universities offering degrees in e-sports management, varsity e-sports programs, and international bodies recognizing e-sports competitions. This growing institutional support mirrors the development of traditional sports leagues over the last few decades.
As e-sports continues to gain ground, traditional sports must adapt to stay competitive. Both industries have much to learn from each other: e-sports can benefit from the structure and history of traditional sports, while traditional sports can adopt the innovative, interactive engagement methods that have made e-sports so appealing to younger audiences.
Policymakers and sports organizations should focus on fostering a collaborative environment that integrates digital elements into traditional sports to attract younger fans. This includes enhancing live experiences through streaming and interactive platforms, as well as embracing digital-first engagement strategies. Moreover, universities and sports bodies should continue supporting e-sports programs as a viable career path, similar to traditional athletic scholarships.
Engagement Resources:
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
- Newzoo provides comprehensive market reports on the e-sports industry, including viewership trends and revenue data.
- Twitch is the largest live-streaming platform for e-sports, allowing users to watch live events and interact with players.
- International Esports Federation promotes e-sports as a legitimate sport, organizing global tournaments and regulatory frameworks.
- National Association of Collegiate Esports serves as a governing body for varsity e-sports programs in U.S. colleges, supporting the integration of e-sports into educational institutions.
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
What Happened to Climate Change as a Political Priority?
What Happened to Climate Change as a Political Priority?
Environment Policy #176| By: Todd J. Broadman | November 3, 2024
Featured Photo: Photo by Emmet on Pexels
__________________________________
POLICY
Along with nuclear annihilation, environmental collapse would seem to eclipse all else worthy of media coverage and political action. Climate-related policy though, has been ushered to the political backstage and that in itself is noteworthy. Why? The power brokers who control the megaphone have a trail of clues.
Former president Trump announced what had perplexed so many at a Sept. 26 press conference: “Do you notice that they never mention anything about environment anymore? What happened to the environment?” He then followed with his answer to that question: “I am going to cut your energy [costs] in half.” Risks associated with climate have been tied to what many politicians believe resonates more deeply with voters: their pocketbooks. Trump’s path to reducing energy costs rests on a common playbook: cut taxes and regulations.
Even the current administration finds it difficult to stir public sentiment around inconsistent and equivocal climate policies. When Biden took office, he wasted no time in rejoining the Paris Agreement, underscoring the looming threat and the importance of global cooperation. For a time, new oil and gas leases on federal lands were paused; work was halted on the Keystone XL pipeline. Government vehicles were to be replaced with a fleet of EV-powered transport. Then we hear the stark reality that on the ground it’s drill-baby-drill, that in 2023, U.S. fossil fuel production reached an all-time high.
Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center, a free-market think tank, points to a major source of confusion, explaining that “proponents of the Green New Deal have attached to the plan too many issues unrelated to climate change.” When the blueprint was introduced in 2019 climate change was framed as a threat to national security, and that renewable energy sources were the answer, not increased domestic treasure hunts for petroleum. Over time though, opposition hammered away at the enormous government price tag for the entitlements and subsidies that would dig an even deeper chasm of federal debt.
The broader populous, even if uninclined to believe that climate change is “a hoax” as Trump says, view shorter term job insecurity, food and medical costs, as more relevant. In addition to pocketbook issues, rule of law, border security, and threats to free speech continue to resonate on the campaign trail. Insecure voters are unmoved by yet another litany of climate statistics about sea level rise and unprecedented flooding events. Thomas Friedman put this into perspective when he wrote “If you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof, bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the very nature of the electricity grid – moving it away from dirty coal or oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project – much bigger than anyone has told you.”
In crucial swing states along the rust belt, even new investment in renewable energy like the new lithium battery plant that will employ 2,200 in Jeffersonville, Ohio, does not resonate with locals as a necessary component of tackling climate change. The jobs are appreciated, but the role of big government in providing subsidies is not. The billions of dollars allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in August of 2022, were to be largely directed to “cut the pollution that is fueling the climate crisis and driving environmental injustice.” If not for V.P. Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote, there would be no IRA; not a single Republican senator voted for its passage. This ideological divide is showing no signs of mending. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris touts the 800,000 manufacturing jobs created during her executive term.
The Green New Deal, first proposed in 2019, was intended to serve as a basis for reframing the economy with the science of climate change as its foundation. There was to be a sweeping social transformation in line with a complete transition away from CO2, aggressive investments in clean manufacturing, a huge expansion in sustainable agriculture, and housing with a small environmental footprint. On top of this, there was to be the guarantee of jobs with a “family-sustaining wage” for the minimum wage masses.
Rather than utilize the Green New Deal to inspire fundamental change, the blueprint has been used to undermine climate policy proposed by “radicals” who would “wage war on coal.” This dilemma of ideals can be clearly seen with Rick Scott (R-FL) who, in spite of acknowledging the reality of climate change, characterizes the Green New Deal as “the religion of the new Left in America.” He made sure the state of Florida’s carbon-reduction goals were removed. No less telling, is his personal holdings in carbon-based energy companies. This intersection between short-term personal gain and longer-term policy shift is the kind of ambiguity that stifles climate change political action. Scott and others are a sounding board for Trump’s rousing sentiment that refers to it as the “Green New Scam” and a “socialist nightmare” that would ruin the American economy.
Jobs creation along the rust belt is real enough. In Ohio alone, close to 5,000 new jobs that range from a solar panel maker employing 1000 in Pataskala, to a vehicle parts factory employing 650 in Dover. Much of the IRA funding for these companies comes in the form of credits for energy saved, for carbon that stays in the ground. Credits for the Honda/LG lithium battery plant in Jeffersonville mentioned earlier are expected to come to $400 million annually up until 2030.
Elon Musk’s Tesla also has been the beneficiary of government credits for building transportation alternatives, and Musk, in 2018, seemed unequivocal in his position that “climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces this century.” Yet in another indication of the uncertain political winds, Musk has expressed some degree of skepticism of the immediacy of the climate crisis. Since joining forces with candidate Trump, he emphasizes our dependency on oil to prevent economic collapse; that we risk mass starvation with any abrupt change. As he said recently, we should be “predominately sustainable 50 to 100 years from now,” a sufficiently watered-down comment – to the point of contradiction.
Perhaps most perplexing is the backpedaling on climate-change policies given the volume of damage, both to humans and the environment, from fire, drought, and flooding, over the last decade. Over the last six years, economic losses have tallied to over $1 trillion. There is a tacit, complicit bi-partisan agreement that this toll, however egregious, is preferrable to life without black gold.
ANALYSIS
For the most part, U.S. climate change policy has relied on incentives for individuals and businesses to make the switch to non-carbon energy sources. These economic carrots do work but their application is targeted and highly limited in scope. The U.S. electric grid is 60% carbon-fueled while 92% of autos on the road burn gasoline. Agriculture contributes a little over 10% of U.S. carbon emissions and given current trends will be the last sector to make the transition to renewable sources. Politicians have not ventured down the path of using sticks, such as penalties and fines, and there is no indication of such a move.
While the IRA has substantial funding for sustainable manufacturing, it is one small package of incentives in a sea of business-as-usual fossil fuel exploration projects which include fracking. The use of coal has gone down to 16% of energy fuel domestically due to economic pressures and relative low cost of natural gas. Coal exports though, have surged, with India accounting for 25% of all coal exports from the U.S. The expectation is that coal production will continue to rise due to overseas demand. By far the largest coal producing state is Wyoming and when the Biden administration announced a ban on new coal leasing in Wyoming, as expected, it was met with strong opposition from Wyoming senators who said the ban constituted “a war on coal.”
The environmental dividing line in Congress is stark. A new Republican seat in either Ohio or Montana will likely tip the majority to red and this would further diminish already slim chances of any major climate-change bills from passing (even if Kamala Harris wins the presidency). A Trump victory will virtually assure attempts that every potential oil spigot will turn full throttle. To get there, Republicans will cut regulations and rally for energy independence. As a precursor, Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed legislation this year that erases references to climate change in state law. The governor also rejected more than $350 million in federal funding for energy efficiency initiatives and another $320 million to reduce vehicle emissions.
The private corporate sector has been more aggressive than the government in setting and meeting voluntary sustainability targets. Approximately half of the fortune 500 have set net-zero goals. The leading industry is utilities, while mining and other carbon-intensive sectors have much lower targets. The lack of political will has had an impact and the last year has seen some firms scale back their commitments. Investors are also concerned about climate-related risks in their corporate investments, and in response the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rules requiring disclosure of climate-related information. An outstanding example is Johnson & Johnson whose aims is for net-zero across its entire value chain by 2045.
There is a combination of climate-change fatigue and a reluctance to curtail the conveniences of a carbon-fueled society that has reduced the perception that addressing climate-change should be a top priority. Rising food and housing prices for working class voters has also overshadowed interest in the sustainability transition, and politicians have echoed and reinforced this sentiment. The suffering from climate catastrophes is slated for a dramatic uptick in scale and frequency, but as seen from the recent hurricane Helene, the demands for the ending of fossil fuels are muted, scarcely heard.
Engagement Resources
- Yale E360 offers opinion, analysis, reporting, and debate on global environmental issues.
- Earth.org is a voice, a lifeline, a place of sanity in a world of increasing chaos.
- Climate Change Resources enables a more educated and empowered army of climate change activists to take all of the critical steps necessary to rescue humanity’s future
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
What does the Economic Nobel Laureate Letter mean for the Election?
What does the Economic Nobel Laureate Letter mean for the Election?
Elections & Politics #138 | By: Arvind Salem | November 3, 2024
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
As the election approaches, with the economy being one of, if not, the most important issues, twenty three Nobel Laureate economists signed an open letter endorsing Kamala Harris for President. The letter, signed by over half the living Nobel economic laureates, was spearheaded by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor, who won the prize in 2001. This is the second letter that Stiglitz coordinated this election: he led an effort in June to support President Biden, with that letter being signed by fifteen Nobel Laureate economists.
For Harris, the economy is a key vulnerability that might give her more credibility in the swing states and for the voters that ultimately decide the election. This includes voters in states like Michigan, where economic tensions burst into a major strike from the United Auto Workers (UAW) against the Big Three car companies last year, and in Pennsylvania, where Harris doesn’t seem to enjoy the same robust support among blue-collar workers in the state that Biden did. Trump’s closing arguments accentuate the increasing support his economic agenda has among voters in urban areas. Even strategically, the choice of J.D. Vance was an attempt from Trump to appeal to disaffected white voters in Appalachia, harnessing their dissatisfaction with the economy.
Analysis:
Of course, Donald Trump isn’t going to change his economic policy based on these opinions. He dismissed the letter in June as from “worthless out of touch” economists. Even in the vice-presidential debate, JD Vance criticized the advice of academic economists on issues such as free trade, and Tim Walz generally agreed with that sentiment (although he was considerably less harsh).
However, the key takeaway is that academic consensus in economics is behind Harris despite overall pessimism about the economy, and despite the economy being a perceived strength for Trump. In particular, these economists reinforced their preference for free trade, as they criticized Trump’s proposed tariffs, as well as arguing against President Trump’s regressive tax cuts. They concluded that both would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality”. Trump’s tariff proposal specifically has drawn criticism from multiple angles, with the Tax Foundation noting that the proposed tariffs and the likely retaliation from trading partners would lower the U.S. long-run GDP by 1.7%. Finally, these economists grounded their larger argument on the importance of the rule of law, as well as economic and political certainty, for economic success, noting that Trump represents a much larger threat to both of those than Harris does.
In relation to the election, this endorsement makes it clear that Harris’s vulnerability on the economy is more a messaging problem rather than a policy one. Her policies are clearly good for the American economy and in the closing stretch of the election she needs to stress the real, proven appeals of her policies in relation to Trump’s phantom appeal.
Engagement Resources:
- The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a non-partisan, non profit organization that aims to educate the public on fiscal policy issues and promote fiscal responsibility. Readers interested in the issues discussed in this article may be interested in subscribing or donating to this organization.
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research and policy institute that seeks to build a nation where everyone has the resources they need to thrive. It does this through research and advocacy on a variety of fiscal policy issues on both the federal and state level. Readers interested in fiscal policy may wish to donate or otherwise contribute to this organization.
- The Economic Policy Institute is a nonpartisan, non-profit think tank that aims to highlight the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. To accomplish this goal they conduct research on working America, propose public policy solutions to the problems plaguing working America, and assess government policies’ on low and middle-income workers. Readers interested in broader economic issues may be interested in donating to this organization.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Elon Musk’s Worrying Involvement in the 2024 Election
Elon Musk’s Worrying Involvement in the 2024 Election
Elections & Politics #137 | By: Arvind Salem | November 3, 2024
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
Ahead of the 2024 election, Elon Musk has emerged as one of Trump’s key allies, endorsing Trump and repeatedly praising him, with Trump returning in kind. Politically, Musk occupies a unique niche. He is simultaneously one of the richest men on earth, a media mogul, and a lightning rod of controversy: a profile that mirrors President Trump himself. Given their similarities, it is unsurprising that Trump and Musk should find themselves as natural allies; however, the degree of involvement that Musk is displaying in the 2024 election goes beyond the typical businessman endorsement.
Musk didn’t always favor President Trump. Prior to his endorsement of him this election cycle, he supported Ron Desantis in the primary, criticized Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election, and didn’t think he would make a good president after the 2016 election cycle. However, behind-the-scenes ideological shifts, his anti-Biden viewpoints, and the attempted assaination attempt on President Trump in Butler, convinced Elon to endorse Trump, and both parties seemed to have largely abandoned their former animosity towards each other.
Musk is hardly the first businessman to make a presidential endorsement or get involved in political causes. However, he is the first who has gotten involved in the actual operation of a campaign. Traditionally, billionaires relegate their involvement to an endorsement and a check, but Musk’s current conduct is more in the realm of a political operative than an endorsing businessman. In contrast to fellow business mogul Jeff Bezos, who stopped the Washington Post from endorsing a candidate, Musk has not been shy of using his media control to help President Trump’s election chances, frequently posting supportive messages on his X account with more than 200 million followers, while his position as owner means that he will always have that platform no matter what he says. However, this is still not the extent of his involvement. He has founded America PAC, an organization that the Trump campaign is relying on for grassroots outreach to voters in key swing states, encouraging up to 1 million voters to support President Trump and has already spent over 80 million dollars. Trying to build up this political operation in such a short time is unprecedented, and several Republican operatives expressed concerns that the data from America PAC and its subcontracted firms are less than reliable.
Analysis:
Of course, Elon Musk isn’t expending all of this effort for no reward: President Trump has made it clear that Elon will get a government position at the very least. President Trump has said that he would appoint Elon as the Secretary of Cost-Cutting, although the exact rank of that position is yet to be determined (appointing Elon to cabinet would be complicated given his extensive business holdings and commitments). Trump and Elon are also aligned on the goal of going to Mars as soon as possible, with Trump significantly prioritizing U.S. space superiority, through the creation of the Space Force in his first term and Musk focusing on getting to Mars through Space X.
However, appointing political supporters to government positions isn’t unprecedented, and especially given these obvious areas of political alignment, entertaining these conversations isn’t crazy. If the goal is cost-cutting, appointing one of the most successful business leaders in America is hardly an illogical choice. The problem with this Trump-Musk relationship is that both of Elon’s companies (SpaceX and Tesla) are supported by the government, especially through government contracts, which the President has discretion over. An analysis by the New York Times found that SpaceX and Tesla have received over $15 billion in government contracts over the last decade, which is many multiples of what Elon is contributing to President Trump’s election efforts. Additionally, Tesla’s electric cars have benefitted from policies designed to incentivize electric cars to reduce carbon emissions, with Tesla receiving $9 billion in federal subsidies since 2018. Given the interaction Elon Musk has not only with the government as client, but also agencies under executive control such as the National Labor Relations Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which have both investigated Musk’s companies, favor with President Trump would be extremely lucrative for him; especially if he receives a position where he is in charge of evaluating the very regulators/ regulations that are currently causing him trouble.
Engagement Resources:
- Harris for President Readers who want to stop this alliance from gaining power may wish to support the Harris campaign through this website.
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy. Readers worried about the health of democracy in light of these developments may wish to visit this website for more information.
- ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are opposed to President Trump on this website and can support races at all levels across the country.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #166 | By: Ibrahim Castro | November 01, 2024
Featured Photo: Collage by Breann Bracewell for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________
Officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, attend a plenary session in the outreach/BRICS Plus format at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, Oct. 24, 2024 AFP/Getty Image
BRICS Summit
Last week a three-day BRICS (stands for Brazil Russia, India, China, South Africa) summit was held in the southwestern Russian city of Kazan. It was the first meeting of the group of major emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa since it expanded earlier this year to include Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The group now consists of 10 member states, however 20 heads of state, including the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres made their way to Russia to attend the summit. The favorable attendance of multiple non-member heads of state looking to join the bloc presented a win to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president has been trying to court more and more non-Western allies due to sanctions and cutting of ties following the invasion of Ukraine. Though not formally on the summit’s agenda, the war came up repeatedly by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who called for “a just peace” in Ukraine in line with international law and General Assembly resolutions.
During the summit Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, voiced their commitment to jointly introduce an alternative international payment system that would not be dependent on the US dollar. Something that Russia desperately needs and certainly benefits from having other countries join in. Other than the five members who joined earlier this year, more countries have expressed their interest in joining the group. Turkey, Azerbaijan and Malaysia have formally applied to become members. If Turkey were to join it would become the first NATO member state to join the BRICS bloc, a likely stress point for NATO and EU member states. The BRICS member states make up 3.27 billion people, or 41.13 % of the world’s population. The BRICS countries account for 35% of global GDP, while the G7 only represents 30%. As the group continues to expand its role and influence in global affairs will grow as well.
Soldiers march in a parade for the 70th anniversary of North Korea’s founding day in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Sept. 9, 2018.
North Korean Troops in Russia
North Korea has sent about 10,000 troops to Russia to train and likely fight inside Ukraine in the coming weeks, according to NATO and Pentagon officials. Some of the North Korean soldiers were believed to be already heading for the Kursk border region, where Russia has been struggling to push back a Ukrainian incursion. Adding North Korean soldiers to the war will likely stoke geopolitical tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the wider Indo-Pacific region, including Japan and Australia. South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol , has already vowed to respond to North Korea’s deployment of troops to Russia, including by potentially supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine.
Israel strikes Iran continuing tit-for-tat
Last week, Israel carried out waves of airstrikes in and around Iran’s capital, Tehran. These strikes mark a new round in the ongoing tit-for-tat exchanges of “retaliatory” responses that Israel and Iran have been launching at each other for months now. The attacks primarily targeted military sites in and around the capital. This direct exchange of fire began in April, when Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel—using about 300 missiles and drones—in response to an Israeli airstrike on an Iranian consulate in Syria. In July, Israel killed a top Hezbollah commander in an airstrike in Beirut and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in an explosion in Tehran. In late September, Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Brig-Gen Nilforoushan, a high-ranking Iranian official, in Beirut. Following these assassinations, on October 1, Iran again launched ballistic missiles at Israel, stating the action was in retaliation for the assassination of Haniyeh in its capital and retribution for Nasrallah, and Nilforoushan.
Now, in late October, we are witnessing another round of violence, with Israel responding to Iran’s response, in a seemingly endless cycle of “limited-strategic-retaliatory responses”. US officials have said that “this round of strikes should be the end of the direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran” and an end to the escalating situation. The Iranian government has downplayed the impact of the attacks, requested a Security Council meeting on the matter and stated that Iran was obligated to defend itself and would respond.
A woman buys soup from a street vendor during a power outage in Havana, Monday Oct.21, 2024 (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)
Blackouts in Cuba
The Cuban government has started to restore power to the millions of residents left in the dark during a nationwide power outage last week. The country’s main power grid collapsed, leaving the entire country without electricity.The crisis was compounded by the passage of hurricane Oscar over the island, which flooded rivers, streets and tore down power lines across eastern Cuba, killing at least seven people. The government acknowledged the critical state of its system, blaming the 62-year old-trade embargo imposed by the United States as the reason for the blackouts. Cuba’s government has relied on the aid of its allies for its necessities – namely Russia and Venezuela. But those countries, now facing their own difficulties, have cut supplies to the island heavily. Since restoring the grid the island has returned to the status quo, which still entails regular power cuts of up to 20 hours a day. The crisis has left a deep uncertainty about the island’s future and ability to provide for itself.
José Mujica, a former president of Uruguay, voting at a polling station in Montevideo, the country’s capital, during primary elections in June. Credit… Eitan Abramovich/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Elections in South America
Two South American countries, Chile and Uruguay, are currently holding nationwide elections. A third country, Bolivia, is experiencing political instability in anticipation of elections next year. In Chile, the moderate right made gains in regional elections. While President Gabriel Boric’s leftist coalition avoided a crushing defeat, the outcome suggests to some a potential return to right-wing politics ahead of the 2025 presidential election. Yet the extreme right remains on the sidelines, Chile’s far-right Republicans did make some gains at the municipal level, but fell short of forecasted expectations.
Uruguay cast ballots last week in a presidential election, where a center-left rural mayor pulled ahead of the conservative incumbent candidate, pushing the race into a second round of voting. In a country of 3.5 million, over 2.7 million eligible voters cast their ballots, resulting in a reported turnout of more than 88% by the time the polls closed. In Uruguay, voting in presidential and congressional contests is compulsory. While other states in the region have faced more divisive politics and distrust of government, Uruguay’s electorate remains largely content with the country’s politics and the steady growth of the economy.
In Bolivia, former president Evo Morales survived an assassination attempt last week after unidentified men opened fire on his car. The attack has intensified tensions in the ongoing power struggle between the ex-president and his ally-turned-rival, current President Luis Arce. This incident coincides with a bitter split at the highest levels of the ruling Movement Toward Socialism party and has raised fears of continued conflict as the 2025 presidential election approaches.
For more updates, articles, in-depth analysis and weekly reviews on Global News, click here.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A Tale of Two Januarys | Why this former Republican is voting for Kamala Harris
A Tale of Two Januarys | Why this former Republican is voting for Kamala Harris
Elections & Politics #136 | By: Rudolph Lurz | October 31, 2024
Featured Photo: abcnews.go.com
__________________________________
I spent most of my adult life in the Republican Party. I enthusiastically supported John McCain in 2000 and 2008. I voted even more enthusiastically for Mitt Romney in 2012. My ideology is grounded in fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, strong national defense, and federalism.
I worked as a legislative intern for a GOP state senator to learn about policy formation. I was more than a right-leaning voter. I was a true believer in the party of Lincoln, Teddy, and Reagan. Like many Republicans, I saw an opportunity in the primary season of 2015-2016. I could not wait to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect the next Republican President of the United States.
Then Donald Trump came down his golden escalator.
I recognized that Trump was the demagogue that the Founders feared. I wrote that the only way for Republicans to win was for Trump to lose. I noted that his anti-immigrant fear mongering was reminiscent of the 19th Century No-Nothing Party and had dark roots reaching down to the worst parts of human nature.
I posted way too often on Twitter. I advocated for Governor Kasich. I pleaded with my friends to stop Trump’s path to the nomination.
Then he won it. Then I woke up to the news that Pennsylvania had been called and America had just elected Donald Trump.
I stayed a Republican for a little while longer. Hoping that members of my party would stand up to him. Instead, they all bent the knee.
I became a blue dog Democrat after that. There was space for a McCain/Romney Republican in the Democratic Party. I wrote passionately in 2020 to endorse Joe Biden. I celebrated with my liberal colleagues even though I disagreed with 90% of Biden’s platform.
The Republic was more important than tax cuts. Trump had to be defeated.
I thought it was over. Then January 6th happened. And somehow the cowardly GOP decided to forget about that, too. Trump is back.
Once again, the only choice is the Democrat standing in his way. That person is Kamala Harris. She must become the 47th President of the United States.
Analysis
There is a myriad of reasons to vote for Kamala Harris. I disagree with most of her policies. I’m voting for her anyway.
To me, 2024 is the choice between two Helsinkis and two Januarys.
The first Helsinki is the disastrous meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. From that podium in Finland’s capital, Trump sided with Putin over America’s own intelligence services.
Far from “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” indeed. President Reagan would roll over in his grave if he witnessed a so-called Republican groveling before his Russian counterpart.
President Trump openly praised Russia’s dictator while criticizing NATO allies and threatened to pull out of the treaty that has guaranteed Western security for multiple generations.
President Biden secured a coalition to keep Ukraine standing following a brutal attack from Russian invaders. When Biden went to Helsinki, it was to announce NATO’s expansion. Finland and Sweden are now both NATO countries. Ukraine’s flag still flies over Kiev and NATO has never been stronger.
Which version of foreign policy more closely aligns with traditional conservative ideology? It’s absolutely Biden and Harris leading the free world instead of retreating into appeasement and isolationism.
My conservative friends talk often about how 2017-2019 were great years. President Trump was inexperienced with wielding executive power. He also had fairly competent leadership serving alongside him. General Kelly and General Mattis are American heroes.
By the end of his term, the good folks were gone. The only ones that remained were sycophants. The only test that mattered was fealty to Trump.
General Mattis didn’t have a job in 2020 and Betsy DeVos still did. Competence doesn’t matter to Trump. Blind obedience does.
Trump the Sequel will not have the competent supporting actors of Trump 2017. It will be a freak show that looks more like Q-Anon’s finest than Trump’s first West Wing. Have you seen the typical lineups at CPAC lately?
General Mattis, General Kelly, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan are long gone.
Matt Gaetz, Mike Flynn, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are leading the GOP vanguard now.
You’re not going to get conservative policy wins with this Mos Eisley Cantina band of weirdos in charge of the country. 2017 and 2018 weren’t great to begin with. They’re not coming back in Trump’s second term. It will look more like that Madison Square Garden nightmare than bill signing celebrations in the Rose Garden.
The most important thing to me is a choice between two Januarys.
We can inaugurate Kamala Harris on January 20th after a resounding win that sends Trump back to retirement at Mar-a-Lago. Normal Republicans like Nikkii Haley and Governor Sununu can have a place at the table again.
Or we can elect Trump. We can watch Vice President Harris certify Trump’s victory on January 6th. We can watch those same losers that desecrated the Capitol 4 years ago celebrating in the same spot. We can watch the imprisoned rioters step out of jail on January 20th when Trump is inaugurated and pardons them all, like a dystopian reprise of that scene in Air Force One when the terrorist colonel gets released from prison while the other prisoners cheer. We can watch our children celebrate Ashli Babbitt Day as Trump declares her martyrdom.
Then we can all watch Donald Trump take his second oath of office on Martin Luther King Day while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris glare in silence.
That is the darkest timeline. But we can prevent it.
I don’t want four more years of chaos. I want the adults back in charge of the GOP. To my fellow conservatives, you don’t have to sacrifice your principles by swearing fealty to a narcissist. In the words of Owen Wilson’s character at the end of the film, Wedding Crashers, “I’m not standing here asking you to marry me. I’m just asking you not to marry him.”
You don’t have to like Kamala Harris. You don’t have to like her policies. It’s not marriage. It’s one vote in the booth on one day to ensure we don’t have four more years of lunacy.
One vote for Trump won’t create fascism. It will create modern feudalism. Trump isn’t a dictator. He’s a sad feudal lord who wants to turn the country into his personal fiefdom. If Trump wins, the GOP will forever be united to Trump’s vision and legacy. A vote for Kamala is temporary. A vote for Trump is forever.
I’d like to have the confidence to put the news on TV without the President of the United States saying obscene things that I would not want my young daughters to hear. I’d like the confidence to criticize the President at lunch at Applebee’s without wondering if there’s a red hat in a neighboring booth who’s going to stand up and try to fight me.
Trump will not bring back the glory years. He’ll bring back division, destruction, and embarrassment.
I choose the Helsinki where NATO thrives. I choose the January that allows my daughters to watch the first female President take the oath of office.
I choose Kamala Harris. I hope you do as well.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.