A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



November 04, 2024

Now the "explainers" have to say what he meant to say....

Trump Says He’d Be OK With Someone Shooting Through a Crowd of Journalists

“To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much,” Trump said.

Julianne McShane

Yes, you read that headline right.

At a rally in Pennsylvania on Sunday, Donald Trump said he would be OK with someone trying to assassinate him by firing through a group of journalists. “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much,” Trump said, when discussing the bulletproof glass protecting him.

The Trump campaign tried to clean up the Republican candidate’s comments…by suggesting people should not believe what they heard, and repeating baseless claims that Democratic rhetoric was to blame for the assassination attempts against him. Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, claimed in a statement that the ex-president “was stating that the Media was in danger, in that they were protecting him and, therefore, were in great danger themselves, and should have had a glass protective shield, also. There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own!”

When I wrote to the Trump campaign asking for a follow-up statement and pointing out that Trump’s actual statement didn’t match Cheung’s explanation, Karoline Leavitt, national press secretary, resent Cheung’s statement. (Just 2 days ago, Leavitt claimed on Fox News that Trump was running “a positive campaign based on real joy.”)

But several reporters pointed out on social media that the campaign’s statement did not accurately represent Trump’s comments and that his rhetoric has emboldened threats against the press. “This being a joke or not, as someone who has attended dozens of Trump’s rallies—including the assassination attempt in Butler, PA—and has been personally threatened repeatedly, I sincerely hope no one attempts to act on this,” CNN reporter Alayna Treene posted on X.

As my colleague Dan Friedman pointed out, these disturbing comments are the latest in Trump’s escalating threats against the free press as Election Day nears. As Dan reported this weekend, Trump told Fox News on Saturday morning, “To make America great, you really do have to get the news shaped up”; later in the day, at a rally in North Carolina, he called the reporters present “monsters,” and “horrible, horrible, dishonest people.” And as my colleague Pema Levy wrote on Friday, Trump also filed a frivolous lawsuit against CBS News and sent a complaint against the Washington Post to the Federal Election Commission—both of which alleged the outlets were favoring his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. And while it may be easy to dismiss these moves as just the latest Trump absurdities, they foretell the dangers he could pose to the free press. As Pema wrote:

It’s one thing for Trump to sue CBS as a citizen. But if he wins, Trump could make sure this type of suit comes from the Justice Department. It’s a warning shot to the media that any coverage Trump deems unfavorable, including an interview with a rival, could land them in court opposite the US Government.

In a way, though, journalists are not special: They are just one of many groups Trump might target in a second term.

NGC 6744


Big, beautiful spiral galaxy NGC 6744 is nearly 175,000 light-years across, larger than our own Milky Way. It lies some 30 million light-years distant in the southern constellation Pavo but appears as only a faint smudge in the eyepiece of a small telescope. We see the disk of the nearby island universe tilted towards our line of sight in this remarkably deep and detailed galaxy portrait, a telescopic image that spans an area about the angular size of a full moon. In it, the giant galaxy's elongated yellowish core is dominated by the light from old, cool stars. Beyond the core, grand spiral arms are filled with young blue star clusters and speckled with pinkish star forming regions. An extended arm sweeps past smaller satellite galaxy NGC 6744A at the upper left. NGC 6744's galactic companion is reminiscent of the Milky Way's satellite galaxy the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Jupiter


What's that black spot on Jupiter? No one is sure. During one pass of NASA's Juno over Jupiter, the robotic spacecraft imaged an usually dark cloud feature informally dubbed the Abyss. Surrounding cloud patterns show the Abyss to be at the center of a vortex. Since dark features on Jupiter's atmosphere tend to run deeper than light features, the Abyss may really be the deep hole that it appears -- but without more evidence that remains conjecture. The Abyss is surrounded by a complex of meandering clouds and other swirling storm systems, some of which are topped by light colored, high-altitude clouds. The featured image was captured in 2019 while Juno passed only about 15,000 kilometers above Jupiter's cloud tops. The next close pass of Juno near Jupiter will be in about three weeks.

M42


The Great Nebula in Orion, an immense, nearby starbirth region, is probably the most famous of all astronomical nebulas. Here, glowing gas surrounds hot young stars at the edge of an immense interstellar molecular cloud only 1500 light-years away. In the featured deep image in assigned colors highlighted by emission in oxygen and hydrogen, wisps and sheets of dust and gas are particularly evident. The Great Nebula in Orion can be found with the unaided eye near the easily identifiable belt of three stars in the popular constellation Orion. In addition to housing a bright open cluster of stars known as the Trapezium, the Orion Nebula contains many stellar nurseries. These nurseries contain much hydrogen gas, hot young stars, proplyds, and stellar jets spewing material at high speeds. Also known as M42, the Orion Nebula spans about 40 light years and is located in the same spiral arm of our Galaxy as the Sun.

It was no surprise

Trump’s Long Legacy of Inciting Violence

No president has appealed to Americans’ darkest impulses or sought to turn them on one another like Trump has.

Mark Follman

It was no surprise. Instead, call it the October reveal.

In the final days of the 2024 election, ugly rhetoric from Donald Trump’s campaign drew major national attention when a speaker made a racist joke about Puerto Rico as part of the ex-president’s Oct. 27 rally at Madison Square Garden. The event was an inevitable culmination for the Trump campaign, a six-hour pageant of divisiveness and bigotry that featured multiple speakers launching racist and misogynistic attacks on Kamala Harris. It concluded with Trump at the podium delivering the same demagoguery he has used in dozens of rallies this year: painting a wildly exaggerated picture of national decay, promoting baseless conspiracy theories, and stoking fear and anger about an alleged “invasion” of America by murderous migrants.

Such themes have been at the dark heart of Trump’s politics ever since he entered the presidential race nearly a decade ago. As he has taken these tactics to new extremes over the past few months, law enforcement and national security sources I’ve spoken with have warned about a growing danger of far-right political violence inspired by Trump’s messaging.

This is not theoretical. It’s based on a lengthy history of violence associated with Trump’s rhetoric, which by 2021 led a bipartisan group of top national security experts to take the extraordinary step of labeling Trump, effectively, a terrorist leader—the de facto head of a violent extremist movement within the United States.

Given that another central tactic of Trumpism is to try to cover up the truth and push anything damaging down the memory hole, the time is ripe to revisit some of the major violence coinciding with Trump’s incitement. I’ve been documenting these grim events for more than six years.

As I reported in an investigation begun in summer 2018, white supremacist attacks grew deadlier during Trump’s tenure in the White House. The violence unfolded amid a surge in far-right plots and threats, according to law enforcement sources I spoke with then. That included a wave of menace specifically targeting journalists, who Trump and his allies smeared repeatedly as “the enemy of the American people.” Two devastating mass shootings—one at a synagogue in Pittsburgh and another at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas—involved perpetrators who were focused on a migrant “invasion,” a core theme also emphasized back then by Trump. The echoes of Trump’s rhetoric in the El Paso case were particularly stark, as I detailed again recently:

The gunman had driven to the border city from 650 miles away. In custody, he told police he’d come to kill Mexicans. Some writings he’d posted online said his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas” and that his mission was “defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” He cited an extremist ideology known as “The Great Replacement.”

These were not obscure ideas. The gunman wrote that he agreed with a recent mass shooter in New Zealand who had espoused them. He also knew some of these themes were being championed at the time by President Donald Trump. With help from Fox News pundits, Trump was whipping up fear and hatred of an alleged “invasion” coming across America’s southern border—the message was central to Trump’s reelection campaign in 2019, a focus of his ads and speeches warning ominously of a national demise.

At the end of the shooter’s screed posted online, he sought to validate his attack with a pseudo-clever twist, suggesting that his views predated Trump in the White House. “I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric,” he wrote. Then he used Trump’s own rhetoric as supporting ammo: “The media is infamous for fake news.”

Notably, Trump backer Tucker Carlson, who has long pushed Great Replacement themes, alluded to the ideology again in his caustic speech at the Madison Square Garden rally. And Trump’s biggest financial backer, Elon Musk, has also been emphasizing it down the campaign homestretch.

Most infamously, of course, Trump’s incitement provoked the brutal insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The former president and his allies have spent the years since then trying to erase the truth about Trump’s indelible role in motivating that unprecedented attack on American democracy.

Numerous Republican Party leaders have consistently helped deny, justify, and cover up Trump’s incitement of political violence, and some have since adopted his tactics. Others, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have just played dumb. As one national security source told me recently, “Silence is its own form of participation.”

Trump continues to weave his virulent strands of demagoguery into a grand conspiracy theory alleging the election will be “stolen” from him. As I reported in late October, the further escalation of his extreme rhetoric has been accompanied by a rise in violent threats reflecting his messaging. With the 2024 voting results imminent, the question now is where this defining feature of Trumpism may take us next.

It’s a feature.........

Trump and His Voters: They Like the Lying

It’s a feature, not a bug, for Trumpers.

David Corn

For almost a decade, our world has been shaped and distorted by the lies of Donald Trump. He slithered his way into the White House eight years ago and was expelled four years later by popular demand. Yet like a monster in a horror film, he was not dispatched for good. He defied norms and the Constitution and attacked American democracy. He failed in his underhanded effort to overturn the election, but he succeeded in persuading millions of our fellow citizens to believe the baseless conspiracy theory that he had been swindled out of victory by a nefarious cabal of Deep State actors, the Democrats, the media, and other evildoers. That was quite the accomplishment. During his presidency, according to the Washington Post, Trump had made at least 30,573 false or misleading statements. (And the newspaper did not fact-check all of his utterances.) Yet he still maintained the trust of a large chunk of Americans.

Trump is unparalleled in the annals of deception. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University historian who studies authoritarianism, recently told me, “Trump is one of the most successful propagandists in history. He managed to convince tens of millions that he won a national election working not in a domesticated media system or a one-party state but in a fully pluralist media environment in a democracy. No one has ever done that on that scale. Also look at what he’s accomplished with the perception of January 6.”

As we approach yet another judgment day for Trump, like many of you, I remained puzzled by Trump’s ability to maintain his standing as a champion for so many Americans, despite his obvious lies and profoundly low and mean-spirited character. He’s a con man whose deceptions and hypocrisies are easy to detect (including his consequential lies about the pandemic and the assault on the US Capitol he incited). The question won’t fade: How does he get away with it?

As we approach yet another judgment day for Trump, like many of you, I remained puzzled by Trump’s ability to maintain his standing as a champion for so many Americans, despite his obvious lies and profoundly low and mean-spirited character. He’s a con man whose deceptions and hypocrisies are easy to detect (including his consequential lies about the pandemic and the assault on the US Capitol he incited). The question won’t fade: How does he get away with it?

Not long ago, I came across an academic study that sought to answer this question. In 2018, Oliver Hahl of the Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business and Minjae Kim and Ezra Zuckerman Sivan of the MIT Sloan School of Management published an article in the American Sociological Review titled “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth About Political Illegitimacy.” As they put it, they were looking to explain “a puzzling pattern that has been discussed widely since the 2016 U.S. presidential election…[H]ow can a constituency of voters find a candidate ‘authentically appealing’ (i.e., view him positively as authentic) even though he is a ‘lying demagogue’ (someone who deliberately tells lies and appeals to non-normative private prejudices)?” In short, how to understand Trump’s popular support.

This trio noted that during the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton “was harmed by the perception that she was inauthentic.” Fairly or not, many voters saw her as motivated by self-interest and not honest. But, they write, Trump was “perceived by his supporters as appealingly authentic despite abundant evidence that (1) he was at least as sensitive to private self-interest as Clinton, with no corresponding record of public service; (2) he was considerably more prone to falsehood than Clinton; and (3) he deliberately flouted many norms that had been taken for granted for many years and were widely endorsed.”

After reviewing existing literature on populist demagogues and conducting a couple of studies, these three academics derived an explanation. Here it is (without the citations):

We argue that a particular set of social and political conditions must be in place for the lying demagogue to appear authentically appealing to his constituency. In short, if that constituency feels its interests are not being served by a political establishment that purports to represent it fairly, a lying demagogue can appear as a distinctively authentic champion of its interests. As first noted by [political scientist Seymour Martin] Lipset, such a “crisis of legitimacy” can emerge under at least two conditions: (1) when one or more social groups are experiencing what we call a “representation crisis” because the political establishment does not appear to govern on its behalf; and (2) when an incumbent group is experiencing a “power-devaluation crisis” because the political establishment is favoring new social groups over established groups. These scenarios broadly reflect the basis for populist ideologies that promote a “politics of resentment,” whereby the aggrieved constituency comes to believe that the establishment’s claim to represent the interests of the “real people” belies an ulterior agenda they feel powerless to stop. As such, a candidate who engages in lying demagoguery can be perceived as bravely speaking a deep and otherwise suppressed truth. By flagrantly violating norms on which the establishment insists, and thereby earning the opprobrium of this establishment, the candidate appears highly committed to the interests of her constituency. By contrast, an earnest opposition candidate seems less authentic.

I would shorten their conclusion to this: Trump voters like the lying. Or, the lying is the point.

Trump’s boldly false proclamations—about himself, about his rivals and critics, about the world—are not a bug. They’re a feature. They demonstrate he is sticking it to the other side. To the elites, the media, the establishment, the government, academia, Hollywood, the libs, the woke crowd, the minorities, the…whoever it is his supporters resent, despise, or disregard. So if he lies about legal migrants eating pets, or about Kamala Harris being “low IQ,” not really Black, and a communist, or about schools performing gender-affirming operations on kids without their parents’ consent, or about doctors in Democratic states killing babies after they’re born, or about criminal gangs of foreign thugs conquering cities and towns across the Midwest, or about the US economy being a hellscape, or about his majestic accomplishments as president, or about evil Democrats purposefully bringing undocumented people (and criminals) into the United States to destroy the nation, or that you can’t cross the street these days without being mugged, raped, or killed, it doesn’t matter.

Certainly, some of Trump’s supporters buy his bunk. But I suspect many don’t care whether it’s true or not. For them, it’s truthy, in that it corresponds to what they feel and what they think may be true.

His wild assertions, narcissistic boasts, and offensive insults need not be factual. Trump’s ability to say whatever the hell he wants is not for his cultish followers only telling it like it is. It is a sign of strength. It’s his way of giving the finger to them. Trump is demonstrating that he does not play by the rules of the establishment that these people perceive (for an assortment of reasons) as the enemy. That’s the same reason they are not put off by—or even embrace—his crudeness, mean-spiritedness, bigotry, misogyny, and racism.

Trump’s lying and indecency are evidence to them that he will do whatever it takes to be their hero. And some Trumpers probably envy his ability to say whatever he wishes and escape the usual consequences. Trump can pull all this off because millions want him to be able to pull it off. His lies are not merely a personal flaw. His manifold deceits and their acceptance by tens of millions are a sign that our politics, maybe our nation, is broken. How broken will be determined by what happens on Tuesday and in the days and weeks afterward.

Searching

Searching for Democracy and Finding America

by Rebecca Sanchez

Democracy is at once everywhere and nowhere—on the lips of the masses calling for freedom and fearing for its safeguarding, while every day asking the question: What even is democracy?

Starting in 2018, that is the question the Our Democracy team—me along with photographer Andrea Bruce and educator and videographer Lorraine Ustaris—set out to answer. Our starting point wasn’t simple, but it was frank. We would travel cross-country to see how Americans live and hear what they say democracy looks like in their daily lives. 

We decided to follow in the footsteps of French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured the United States in the 1830s and wrote an assessment about why democracy seemed to be succeeding here but had failed in other places. We began with the first words of Tocqueville’s 1835 volume of Democracy in America:  

“Of all the novel things which attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me more forcibly than the equality of social conditions,” he wrote. “I had no difficulty in discovering the extraordinary influence this fundamental fact exerts upon the progress of society.”

For Tocqueville, the “equality of social conditions” is a core principle of democracy that, broadly, meant the absence of aristocracy—a societal state in which, on individual levels, there are few divisions between the people based on birth, wealth, or social status. (Although Tocqueville did note that this equality was one to be found solely among white Christian men. The prejudice against Black Americans was then appearing to “increase in proportion to their emancipation,” he wrote, and he wondered how the United States would recover from being born of the mass genocide of Native Americans.)

“I have looked [in America] for an image of the essence of democracy, its inclinations, its personality, its prejudices, its passions,” Tocqueville concluded. “My wish has been to know it if only to realize at least what we have to fear or hope from it.”

We found a crisis of democracy underlying that of our political fever.

Nearly 200 years later, we set out to examine these social conditions—and to provide an updated record of the state of democracy, local and national, at this moment in American history. 

What we found was a crisis of democracy underlying that of our political fever. A historical, generational, and ongoing inequality and a systemic exclusion—both racial and economic. Scholars like Martin Wolf, author of The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, have said this inequality has been abetted by the neoliberal system, which “poses the most immediate threat to civil society.”

Neoliberalism is loosely defined as the economic system in play from the late 1970s to the 2008 financial crisis. Since then, a study by the Pew Research Center found that even as the economy was growing following the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the gap in income between upper-income and middle- and lower-income households was also rising, with upper-income households seeing more economic growth faster. In 2023, the World Inequality Database reported that the United States is the only country in North America and Oceania in which more than 20 percent of national income goes to the wealthiest 1 percent, with nearly 50 percent going to the top 10 percent.

We found that this crisis of inequality has festered into near-total disillusionment and consequent democratic atrophying on community levels, what Tocqueville referred to as a “loss of spirit,” which he warned could lead to tyranny. Yet we also observed an impulse to form hyperlocal microcosms of democracy to help keep the community alive on an individual level—in Tocqueville’s words, “spirit of association” or “self-governing” that generates democratic participation. 

Crisis, in this sense, is a paradox, a kind of duality—a sort of pharmakon, as philosopher Jacques Derrida might say—both the sickness that kills democratic participation and perhaps the medicine that restores it.    

In Paradise, California, a wildfire decimated the community while activating a group of individuals to restore its livability and ensure its survival.

The November 2018 Camp Fire—the deadliest in the state’s modern history—devastated Paradise, a town in the Sierra Nevada foothills, killing 85 people in Butte County, displacing 50,000, and destroying roughly 14,000 homes. There, we were told persistently and insistently what a great leveler the fire had been. On Valley View Drive, “the richest street in Paradise,” where “you get the full-sized candy bars on Halloween,” $500,000 homes were reduced to fences left standing guard around empty lots. As federal and nonprofit humanitarian aid came and went, residents grew tired of the restrictions and empty promises they said came with it. They started to decline the help and decided instead, despite being unable to lean on neighbors since so many had lost homes and jobs themselves, to use the community to build the safety net all the outside aid could not. It was through the disaster and around its resulting adversity that the community came to congeal. 

I couldn’t help thinking back to our time in Detroit in July 2019. There, we had a chance encounter with an elder named Elemiah Sanders. I was standing on the street, looking at a burned-out home, when Sanders called out to me from behind: “Young lady! What are you all out here doing?” I introduced myself and our project. He looked around before offering his thoughts: “The people lost their spirit,” he told me about his neighbors. “They don’t participate. I think it might be one of those things where we need a disaster to come up and raise up the neighborhood, but I hope it’s not that way.” 

When independence and authority are no longer accessible to the community, Tocqueville urged, when the liberty to self-govern with representational significance that promotes equality is impeded, the ability and desire to swim against the current, to fight to participate when it is felt that participation has been wrenched from the people, wearies, making certain that the institutions and their communities both falter. Spirit withers. It’s just our human nature. Tocqueville insisted: “Patriotism does not long prevail in a conquered nation.” And I came to realize that was true on hyperlocal levels as well.

In Warner Robins, Georgia, the spirit of patriotism is such a part of life and what residents believe democracy to be that it’s in its official motto: EDIMGIAFAD, or Every Day in Middle Georgia Is Armed Forces Appreciation Day. The city between Houston and Peach counties is home to Robins Air Force Base, and American flags appear on house after house as you drive through its neighborhoods. But at the time of visiting in August 2018, the city also had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the country. 

Larry Curtis, a manager of the drones called “Blue Seaters” on the Air Force base and owner of the Curtis Office Suites, said it all comes down to both “the haves and the have-nots” abstaining from participation, “not calling out local injustice like misallocation of funds,” because the “haves feel comfortable and the have-nots feel like it won’t make a difference.” 

The afternoon Curtis drove us onto base, the gray skies expected thunderstorms. It was no matter to Curtis, he kept driving all the same, past two officers holding M16s and pulling a car over, giving us the breakdown of the city’s economically organized geographical divide. He took us out onto Watson Boulevard, which was the zero degree—on one side was the north side, or “the blighted areas,” and on the other was the south side. A church marquee on the north side of Watson read, “When you reach the end of your rope, look up.”

I asked Curtis what was the biggest problem Warner Robins faced. He answered first with just one word, “equality,” and then went on to explain. “Because when you see one part of town and then the other, you see it’s not equal, even down to cutting the grass,” he began. “In the nighttime, you see the lights—there’s no lights on this [north] side of town. The street lamps are out and you can’t get nobody to come out and fix it. The money’s on the south side,” he continued, before adding, “I hate to say the word ‘racial’—I’m more about what’s wrong and what’s right.”

“At the city council meetings, they ask every other week about getting the lights fixed and getting the grass cut,” he said. “So the big problem is really down at city hall.” 

We went to one of those city council meetings and watched residents address council members one after the other, to little or no response. It was clear there was a kind of agitated exhaustion among the residents, where they were almost too tired to keep speaking up just to remain unseen and unheard, but all there was to do was keep speaking up, so they did—the few who had the persistence and made the time to deliver it, for the sake of the many who had largely, as Curtis said, given up. 

Democracy is not working, he told us, because the people don’t exercise their right to vote. Instead, he added, they just accept things for what they are, making it hard to know how to help create change.

Despite voting being one of the answers we heard most frequently to the question of what democracy is, it was this loss of spirit, which Tocqueville referred to as a side effect of losing the power to self-govern, we witnessed atrophying democratic participation. And that loss of spirit is not always a choice. In vastly different communities occupying vastly different parts of the country, that loss of spirit in relation to voting was the same, albeit for different reasons. 

In Memphis in 2018, we spoke with ex-offenders working hard to put their lives back together through the community organization Lifeline to Success, only to continue to confront what was for many of them an unthinkable and unending punishment: felony disenfranchisement. They felt subjected to a system of governing they have no say in, despite having paid their dues to society, and that their lives were being irrevocably shaped by decisions being made for them that they might not have made for themselves.  

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 2021, locals referred to themselves as a colony, with no say in the colonizer’s impact on their lives. Puerto Ricans, as citizens of a territory of the United States, are not granted the right to vote in presidential elections. Vieques, a small island off Puerto Rico’s eastern coast known outside Puerto Rico as the former US Navy bomb training range and testing site, is known by Viequenses as “the colony of a colony.” The sense of silenced despair was especially pronounced as residents, many of them veterans, struggled with everything from meeting basic needs to transportation and the inexistence of medical care amid astronomically high cancer rates—the result of American military pollution, specifically from plutonium and Agent Orange. 

With respect to voting, of the dozen locations we traveled to across the country, one stands out: New Hampshire. We bounced around more than a dozen towns—places like Laconia and Meredith; Tilton, Salisbury, and Moultonborough; Wilmot, Concord, Andover, and Franklin— visiting town hall meetings, schools, families living off the grid, and libertarians, and each town was largely the same. Participation in local direct democracy was not only high, it was an important and ongoing source of pride in the community. Asked why it was such a central part of life in the “live free or die” state, residents said it had always been that way and was a matter of the personal nature of caring for democracy and a sense of duty. But homogeneity also helps. New Hampshire is more than 60 percent white, with an average household income of $90,000 and a 2.6 percent unemployment rate, as of 2024. Self-governing in the best interest of the whole community is often an infinitely smoother negotiation, a process almost unimpeachably straightforward, when most of the members of that community share a relatively secure lived experience.  

In most communities we visited, an enduring existential struggle with poverty was at the root of a communal loss of spirit, offset by the will of just a few individuals to fight back.

When the coal industry largely responsible for building up McDowell County—the poorest county in West Virginia and among the poorest in the nation—dried up, it took most of the economy, resources, and population with it. The coal industry and the county seat, the city of Welch, were at their peak in the 1950s, with a sudden surge in population from roughly 700 to 100,000 and a thronging city center, but machines began to take over the work of men. The county became the first in the country to receive modern-era food stamps after a 1960 visit by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy—a program residents said decimated the community, because, they said, they needed jobs, not food stamps. More than once, residents referred to their county as “America’s forgotten county,” left to themselves and out of the national conversation when it was no longer carrying the weight of the state’s economy. Today, McDowell County is notorious as the coal country that changed its often-Democratic vote to Republican in the 2016 presidential election. 

By 2019, most of Welch’s downtown area was shuttered—what remained were a few small businesses, local government services, and the Welch News, the last remaining news source in McDowell County. Missy Nester, the owner and publisher, told us that she would “print until she ran out of paper.” But the paper was forced to fold in the summer of 2023.

“Our people have nothing,” Nester told the Associated Press in July of that year. “Like, can any of y’all hear us out here screaming?”  

Nester and the Welch community had pulled together to save the newspaper in 2018 after learning that the owner had plans to close its doors. The Welch News had an entirely voluntary team of local drivers who drove a six-hour route through the hills to hand-deliver papers to readers’ homes. Often, they took bread and milk deliveries with them for the elderly who seldom saw anyone but them, and they checked in on every resident they handed off to. It was an intensely personal system that inspired awe unlike much else does.

“We have been the forgotten place for so long that we’re just used to taking care of each other,” Nester said. “We vote to take care of ourselves.”

In some places, like among a sizable Somali immigrant community in Garden City, Kansas, in 2021, people struggled to build a community infrastructure from scratch where there had never been one at all. What little support they’d once had was provided by the nonprofit outreach organization LiveWell, which offered assistance programs and services to the growing population, but funding dried up and the community was left on its own to face everything from obstacles to medical care, to a bomb threat and the racism that came with it, and landlords that financially exploited refugees. The challenge became how to organize a community that was outward facing, that could integrate itself into American society while holding on to its cultural customs when the people could only turn inward for help, creating—naturally—something far more insular. 

I thought a lot then about the importance Tocqueville placed on the idea of “assimilation” as a means of survival, of a group’s adaptability to the social mores of the new Americans as the evidence of whether or not it would ultimately endure American democracy. I thought about, on the one hand, how well the people of New Hampshire felt democracy was working for them and the role of cultural, racial, and economic homogeneity in that, and, on the other hand, I thought about the damage the demand for adaptability, the forced assimilation, has done to entire populations of people who don’t fit into that homogeneity. 

Could democracy ever withstand the pressures of governing over the pluralist society we not only have become, but have really always been? It’s a conversation I had with Latrice Tatsey, a citizen of the Blackfeet Nation in Browning, Montana, while watching her children ride at a rodeo in July 2019. In fact, it was a conversation I seemed to be having with many Blackfeet leaders.

The history of the attempted forced assimilation of the Native Americans at the hands of American settlers is, by now, no secret. Today, it is largely recognized as a genocidal effort that decimated the populations of the country’s nations and tribes not just by the violence of slaughter, but by the violence of cultural destruction and dispossession as well. The result is conditions of living—and sometimes dying, as young people face the challenges of poverty, drug addiction, and suicide—caught between “Western influence” and Native tradition, in which leaders have had to work on ways to “keep the cultures indigenous to their peoples alive,” John Murray, the Blackfeet’s tribal historic preservation officer, told me.

“Is it democracy that ruined it all?” he asked. “Corporate democracy?”

It was a question that had come up more than once for us on the road, as people wondered where the line money draws across for whom democracy works and for whom it does not stops. Could even a perfect democracy subsist within the context of America’s particular brand of capitalism? Does the subsistence of one subset of people require the continued subjugation of another—or all others? 

“We’ve had a very difficult struggle, always at the mercy of the government for survival,” Virgil “Puggy” Edwards, a member of the Blackfeet Constitutional Reform Committee, said as he gave a rundown of the Blackfeet history he was working on that day at the office, where he takes care of archiving and documentation.

Paradoxically, this work the community does to keep culture, family, and tradition alive for the Blackfeet is largely democratic, Tatsey said. It comes down to a duality of spirit, of patriotism, and for the Blackfeet, democratic participation goes back long before the arrival of the first pilgrims to American shores.   

“Our family has adapted to live in both worlds, even though we’re all in this one with our cultural values system, and living in the Western values system—no matter what trauma our people have gone through, they’ve been able to adapt, and that’s why we’re still here today,” she said. “Democracy is, for me, just how our people function for immemorial time, because what you have in our tribal makeup is leaders who, in order to have that leadership role, they had to prove themselves to the people and earn feathers,” she continued. “And so for us, it was what you did for your people and how you were going to guide your people that made the people stand behind you.”

Amid a presidential election—that naturally occurring crisis of democracy, as Tocqueville called it—burning like a wildfire across the country, the slow burn of our secondary crisis, that of the inequality of social conditions, is smoldering. The people, having become incendiary themselves, are a lit powder keg—the spark barreling through the wick. We return to Tocqueville’s words: 

“Of all powers, that of public opinion is the hardest to exploit. It is often just as dangerous [for representatives] to lag behind as it is to outpace it.”

The real test of our democracy, for either side of the party line, will be how we get through it—to the other side of not just the wildfire, but of the slow burn. How we make ourselves hard to exploit and make it hard to exploit each other. 

Tocqueville believed that our loss of spirit would either paralyze our participation, further heighten our passions, and risk a break of the state, or be the catalyst for us to rise up and save what we each believe to be at stake. If we are able to marvel at these communities’ capacity for togetherness in crisis as a feel-good feat of democracy in spite of “democracy” itself, then we should be, to the same extent, able to learn from it that the power of democracy, to self-govern, must sometimes be the power to use democracy to wrench self-governing back. The power to use democracy against itself, for its own good. 

We will perhaps find that the only way to fight for American democracy is for the true equalizer to be us (if we want it). If we must fall to Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority,” let it be because our heightened passions have unified not against each other, but to number the people together greater than the flawed system of governance so that the tyranny belongs to us all. 

And if it gets too heavy and “you reach the end of your rope,” like that church marquee on the north side of Watson Boulevard in Warner Robins preached, just “look up.” The real work of regeneration comes after the fire. 

Confused

Trump Supporters Love Elon Musk. They’re a Little Confused About His PAC.

“I wasn’t sure if it was just a way for them to get our information.”

Tim Murphy

Elon Musk’s $150 million pro-Trump super-PAC is one of the biggest campaign-finance stories in years—maybe ever. It’s the first time a presidential campaign has completely outsourced much of its get-out-the-vote operation to an outside group. And so far, it has been more X than SpaceX.

Musk has overhauled his staff at least once, been sued by the city of Philadelphia, and taken criticism from Republicans who fear that putting a billionaire novice in charge of turnout operations in a nailbiter election just might cost former President Donald Trump the whole thing. The early returns are, as he might say, concerning. The Guardian reported last month that 24 percent of all door-knocks in the state had been flagged as fraudulent by the PAC; in one case, according to the report all 796 door-knocks attributed to one now-fired canvasser had been faked. According to a recent story in Wired, it’s not even clear if some of the people working for the PAC know they’re working to elect Trump.

“It was reported in the New York Times yesterday, I don’t know if anybody saw the article, but there was a canvasser here who was knocking on doors for Donald Trump, and simultaneously managed to be on a golf course 7,000 miles away,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told a room full of volunteers at a Democratic field office in Phoenix on Sunday. “So that’s their operation.”

Unlike most field campaigns, Musk’s mercenaries don’t hold big canvassing launches with coffee and donuts and VIPs, so I wasn’t sure if I’d even encounter them on the ground in Arizona. But it turns out you don’t have to go looking for Musk’s PAC; at Trump campaign events, they’ll come to you.

Almost as soon I slipped into line for J.D. Vance’s rally on Saturday, at the offices of a Scottsdale weapons manufacturer, I encountered a pair of tablet-toting America PAC organizers, walking up and down the line asking people for their information. It was the biggest canvassing day of the entire cycle—all across Maricopa County, groups of volunteers were fanning out into subdivisions for one last push. But these people with tablets were after something a bit more banal. 

“Hey guys,” asked a man in a Smokey the Bear t-shirt and a safari hat, “Have we signed the bill to protect the First and Second Amendment?”

Behind me, a woman started to fill out the survey, but stopped when it asked for her phone number, even though she was assured it would only be used to confirm she was who she said she was.

“Anybody else interested in signing the petition that’s for the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms?” the man with the tablet asked.

He turned to a guy in a baseball cap: “Hey man, can we get you to sign as well to support the First and Second Amendment?”

The voter couldn’t—he was still registered to vote in Tulsa, and the petition is limited to residents of the seven most competitive swing states.

When the organizer walked away, the Oklahoman turned to the woman who had declined to give her phone number. “He seems fishy,” he said of the organizer.

The woman did her best impression of the signature-gatherer. “Where are you from? Where are you from?”

Many people I talked to at the rally were in the same boat: The operation by the PAC, which was not formally connected with the event, seems a little sus. These voters didn’t want to be rushed into signing something on the spot. “I wasn’t sure if it was just a way for them to get our information,” one woman told me. Which, to be fair, it is.

But attitudes toward Musk himself were a lot more favorable. In fact, voters almost invariably brought him up on their own, as someone who had given the campaign, and the prospect of a second Trump term, a new dimension. “He isn’t a very good speaker,” Alan Travis told me, as we waited in line, but it “makes a big difference” to have him on board, because of what he perceived to be a cross-partisan appeal.

Stacie Boucher, a California transplant who says she fled liberal policies, empathized with Musk’s relocation to a more conservative state—in his case, Texas. While the billionaire has spent much of the final stretch in Pennsylvania, where he also has business interests, Musk’s long shadow was felt on stage and off in Scottsdale.

“How would you like to let Elon Musk loose on the bureaucracy?” Donald Trump Jr. asked the crowd in his warmup address for Vance.

When Vance later promised to fire bureaucrats, someone in the crowd behind me shouted simply, “Elon!”

After the event, I saw no sign of the people with tablets. But if the petitions—and the $1 million lottery they fuel—do not serve an obvious benefit to the campaign at this point, they’ve certainly presented an opportunity for entrepreneurially minded Trump supporters. Just past the exit, a woman named Chere Oliver, wearing a white hat that identified her as a “Trump Force Captain,” had set up a folding table surrounded by yard signs—some from the campaign, and some more original creations. Voters could pose for a photo next to a sign that said “Gang Members for Harris” and an Avengers-style poster that said “Team Unity”—featuring Trump as Captain America, and Musk just over his left shoulder, between Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr. For $10, you could buy a Trump yard sign that featured dogs and cats in front of waving American flags.

Trump rallies are a festival of such knick knacks. But Oliver’s biggest hustle was there on the table. While the official campaign signs were free for anyone to take, she was asking everyone who did to sign the America PAC petition too—and to make clear that she was the one who’d referred them. For convenience, she’d included her phone number and email address; anyone in a hurry should just scan a QR code for the petition and take a photo of her information. Because the PAC was offering $47 for each referral, the Trump volunteer stood to make a lot of money if enough fellow supporters abided by her honor system. Oliver had recently lost her job and was banking on this to help cover expenses. She said she’d referred hundreds of people already. So far, she told me, she’d only received $94 for her efforts, which she chalked up to delays in the verification process. 

Her goal was to get 10,457 signatures, she said—Biden’s margin of victory in the state in 2020.

Economic Populism

Can a Waitress Running on Economic Populism Beat a MAGA Republican Who Yells at Teens?

Rebecca Cooke has a chance to secure one of the biggest upsets of 2024 by defeating Rep. Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin.

Noah Lanard

Rebecca Cooke has spent many nights this year waiting tables during her race for Congress in a Wisconsin swing district. She is a 36-year-old service industry worker and nonprofit leader with a chance to secure an upset in a tight House race.

It’s not the typical profile for a future congressman. She has no personal fortune to self-fund her campaign or elected experience. But Cooke—running in a district that covers much of rural southwestern Wisconsin and includes the cities of Eau Claire and La Crosse—hopes a moderate version of Democratic populism can win back Trump voters.

“A big part of our identity and why I wanted to run for Congress is because I feel like there’s a lot of corporate monopolies that have really robbed us of our farming traditions, and that have really crippled a lot of our rural economy,” Cooke told me. She stressed the need for robust antitrust enforcement and supporting organized labor. “I like to tell people often that I’m progressive where it counts,” she said.

Cooke’s district leans Republican—but not by much. Trump carried the area by about 5 points. In 2022, Derrick Van Orden, a right-wing Republican and former Navy SEAL, won the seat after Ron Kind, the longtime moderate Democrat incumbent, announced his retirement. Cooke is now running to unseat Van Orden, who has quickly established a reputation for being one of Congress’ worst-behaved members.

Cooke is affiliated with the moderate Blue Dog wing of the party and has (literally) placed herself in the middle: In one ad, she stands in the center of a dirt road on her family’s farm and criticizes those who are “too far left” and “too far right.”

When I spoke to Cooke last month one of the first things she brought up about herself was that her parents had been forced to sell their cows when she was a kid because they couldn’t compete with big companies. It was a gutting development given that her family has farmed in the district for more than 150 years.

Cooke winning could play a major role in allowing Democrats to take back the House, where they need to flip four seats to regain a majority. It would also further establish that running young political outsiders like Cooke is a way for Democrats to win in Republican-leaning districts that have sometimes been considered out of reach.

Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, says Trump is expected to carry the district again. “I think it is very likely that Cooke will need a decent amount of ticket splitting to go in her favor in order to win the election,” he explained.

Cooke is not alone in adopting her combination of moderation and populism. Since 2022, the Blue Dogs have been taken over by a new generation led by Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Jared Golden (D-Maine), and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska). The new Blue Dogs still take positions that anger some on the left like voting against a student debt relief bill because it didn’t do enough for blue collar workers. But they lean less towards the Chamber of Commerce and more towards emphasizing support for people in the trades.

Gluesenkamp Perez and Cooke are the same age and are also running against far-right Republicans who were once members of US special forces. Gluesenkamp Perez has a rematch against Joe Kent, the retired Green Beret she defeated in 2022 in what was perhaps the biggest upset of the last cycle.

The two millennial women have become friends and talk frequently. Cooke described Gluesenkamp Perez as an “incredible mentor.” The congresswoman has picked Cooke up at the airport when she’s come to DC and given her clothes. “Our districts are sort of similar,” Gluesenkamp Perez said. “Rural. Family farms. People that care about American manufacturing. People in the trades. And, you know, she drives a shit box [car]. She’s great.”

Gluesenkamp Perez has little patience for parsing exactly how she and fellow Blue Dogs should be categorized ideologically. “The political spectrum is not real,” she told me. “It does not exist in nature. What does exist is our farms getting consolidated, seeing young farmers get priced out of land by Chinese investors, having big corporations tell us we can’t fix our own stuff, not being able to buy a pair of work boots that last more than six months.”

Gluesenkamp Perez said she and Cooke “are trying to build a body that is more representative of the normal experience of being an American today.” As she put it: “America is not made up of just lawyers, and the congressional body shouldn’t be.”

Kent and Van Orden, who was at the January 6 rally in Washington, DC, are similarly extreme but Van Orden is maybe the less likable of the two. “She’s running against a really weird dude. This insurrectionist Derrick Van Orden,” Gluesenkamp Perez said about her colleague in the House. “After I endorsed Becca, he shoulder-checked me on the floor.”

In March, Van Orden made news for yelling “lies” during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union. As I’ve written, it was only the latest in a string of embarrassing outbursts. Last year, Van Orden was criticized for yelling at a group of teenage Congressional pages for lying on the floor of the rotunda. Among the things he reportedly told them were:

“Wake the fuck up you little shits.”

“What the fuck are you all doing?”

“Get the fuck out of here. You are defiling the space.”

“Who the fuck are you?”

“I don’t give a fuck who you are, get out.”

In 2021, while running for Congress, Van Orden yelled at another teenage page. In that case, the incident took place at the Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, library. Van Orden objected to a Pride Month-themed display—directing particular ire at the inclusion of A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo, a satirical children’s book that imagines a world in which Mike Pence’s pet rabbit Marlon Bundo was gay. (Van Orden is the author of Book of Man: A Navy Seal’s Guide to the Lost Art of Manhood.)

When we spoke, Cooke said residents of the district are ready for a member of Congress who is “going to go out there and get shit done and not embarrass us.” But she mostly stuck to a more typically Wisconsin style of shading her opponent. “He lives on a hobby farm in the district,” Cooke noted, “and I think there’s some differences in the way in which we grew up.”

Cooke spent more time emphasizing her own priorities of defending women’s right to choose, keeping hospitals in the district open, lowering prescription drug prices, protecting family farms, and taking on powerful corporations.

“People are struggling to be able to pay their rent, to get gas at the gas pump, and go to the grocery store and have a little bit of money left over,” Cooke said. “I credit a lot of that to corporations that are price gouging consumers off the backs of their workforce. When you see record profits, that really means stolen wages.”

Tomorrow!

Well tomorrow we will see if American falls to the fucking orange Nazi punks or gives the finger to the fucking pussy grabber!