Author: telegraph

Cornel West Discusses This Moment Of ‘Escalating Consciousness’ And The Need For Radical Democracy

While the mainstream news media’s attention has mostly moved on to other things, the George Floyd protests continue into a fourth week. The Black Lives Matter movement is gaining momentum, in both small majority-white communities and larger more racially diverse cities. Confederate statues and other monuments to white supremacy are being torn down by protesters. Internationally, BLM continues to expand its influence.

There are broad shifts in public opinion, where white Americans – at least for now – are increasingly acknowledging that racism and other forms of social injustice exist and limit the life chances of their fellow Black and brown Americans. Such changes in the public mood are necessary precursors for enacting public policies that can help ameliorate the harm caused by structural and institutional racism and white supremacy in the United States.

Writing for Jacobin, sociologist Douglas McAdam, a leading scholar of social movements, describes this moment:

At least since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August of 2014, every publicized death of an African American at the hands of police has triggered a spasm of protest — before winding down. … The protests that have erupted across the United States in the three weeks since the horrific killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on Memorial Day are very different. … Given this is an ongoing and young movement, it is hard to get a systematic handle on the demographics of the protesters, but there is simply no denying the diversity of those taking part.

McAdam continues by arguing that “we appear to be experiencing a social change tipping point that is as rare as it is potentially consequential”:

The best we can hope for is to do everything we can to maintain the momentum, energy, and inclusive, pragmatic, and nonviolent character of the current protests. Our goal should be twofold: to capitalize on the possibilities for change inherent in this moment, and to begin to pivot toward forms of electoral mobilization crucial to success in the fall. The survival of American democracy will likely depend on how successfully we attend to this agenda.

The political terrain in America is shifting rapidly. The George Floyd protests, in combination with the pain caused by Trump’s neofascist regime, a broken economy and a lethal pandemic that has now killed more than 120,000 Americans, are a series of system shocks that cannot be ignored by the country’s elites.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand.” The question now becomes, how will the powerful respond?

In an effort to answer this question I recently spoke with philosopher, public intellectual, activist, scholar and author Dr. Cornel West, who is professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy at Harvard and a professor emeritus at Princeton. He is the author of several bestselling books, including “Democracy Matters,” “Race Matters” and “Black Prophetic Fire.”

In this conversation West counsels that the American people must prepare for a long and brutal reaction from the country’s right-wing elites to the rising demands for social justice. He warns that Donald Trump and his regime constitute a neofascist disaster that could doom any hope for multiracial social democracy in America, which is why supporting Joe Biden — despite his party’s harmful allegiance to neoliberal gangster capitalism — is a necessary compromise for our country’s survival, and the world’s.


We have seen something beautiful in America and around the world these last few weeks as so many hundreds of thousands of people have protested and risen up because of the police murder of George Floyd. The people marched and kept on going, even though the police beat them, tear-gassed them, shot them with rubber bullets and arrested them. People of conscience did not stop even in the face of raw state power.
Lord, yes, it was beautiful. Anytime you see human beings straighten their backs up and are willing to walk together, struggle together, sing together, and fight together — whatever color they may be — there is a moral majesty and a spiritual beauty that cannot be denied. But now we have got to get ready for the neofascist clampdown and the white backlash. That is what is on the horizon.

How do we prepare the American people for that backlash and revenge? The empire always strikes back.
Very much so, and especially when the empire is weak and desperate.

There is Trump’s personal desperation because he is a neofascist gangster but there is also an entire political system that knows it cannot reform itself. The American political system and the corporate-ocracy and the neoliberal gangster capitalists know that they cannot meet the people’s escalating demands.

So there is Trump’s backlash to prepare for, but there is also the reaction from the neoliberal milquetoast Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democratic Party leadership who are putting on kente cloth and acting like somehow they’ve been on the cutting edge of the struggle for human rights and human dignity and justice.

The neoliberal Democrats have been in power for years while Black brothers and sisters have been getting shot and killed and otherwise abused by the police, but those same Democrats have pushed through crime bills and militarized America’s police. All of a sudden those neoliberal Democrats put on some kente cloth, get down on one knee, and we are supposed to think that they are Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s second cousin? Please. Give me a break. It is absurd.

Is George Floyd a martyr?
I do believe that George Floyd is a martyr. The Greek origins of the word “martyr” is “witness.” “Witness” and “martyr” are almost synonymous.

You can bear witness to something without necessarily having a design for the particular act that your act of witnessing would generate such a response to.

I think Emmett Till was a martyr. But when Emmett was standing outside of that grocery store, he wasn’t thinking about Frederick Douglass. But his witness became one in which his death was a catalyst for a wave of social action and contributed to the civil rights movement. George Floyd’s death is now the catalyst for a social movement here in the United States and also abroad. But Floyd of course is a different type of martyr than Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr.

Malcolm and Martin had a deliberate design and many years of acts where they offered up a public critique of American empire and social injustice. Based on what I know — and I may be wrong — George Floyd did not have that type of ideological worldview.

Floyd’s primary witness was that he was the brother who had a heart of gold that connected him to people around him. He supported them, he made them feel good. And even when he went astray and he got into some criminal activity and so forth, even in prison they say he was just as kind and helpful and supportive of people. That is a type of witness too. There are many different kinds of martyrs.

Are we seeing a paradigm shift in America, with the George Floyd protests and people’s uprising? Being in the middle of what feels like great change often robs one of a larger context and perspective.
No. What we are seeing with the protests and people’s uprising is not a paradigm shift. I wish it was. A paradigm shift would have to connect the critique of police murder and brutality with a critique of Wall Street and the Pentagon simultaneously. That’s a paradigm shift. Right now, we are seeing an escalating type of consciousness, which is beautiful, about police brutality. But we are not seeing a paradigm shift in this country.

What are your thoughts about Barack Obama’s comments about the killing of George Floyd and the public’s reaction?
What Obama has offered so far in this time of protests and positive social energy consists of nice little clichés and platitudes. Barack Obama is a brilliant brother. He’s got tremendous charisma and poise, and no one can ever take away his historic significance as the first Black president in the symbolic sense. But when it comes to issues of substance, history is not going to be kind to Barack Obama. Black Lives Matter started during his presidency. The Democrats had control of the House and Senate. Did Obama and the Democrats do anything substantive when all those Black brothers and sisters were being shot and killed and otherwise brutalized by America’s police? Barack and the Democrats did not say a mumbling word about the new Jim Crow during his and their time in power.

Obama, with the Republicans, also moved the country towards austerity. He was dropping bombs with drones in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. Obama decided to become part of a neoliberal regime that had blood on its hands and still does. Obama and the neoliberal Democrats now want to act like they are members of the Black Lives Matter movement. Please, that is absurd.

A juxtaposition of images. We saw an unarmed Black man, George Floyd, being smothered to death by a white police officer while begging, “I can’t breathe.” We also have the image of that 75-year-old white brother being pushed down by the police in Buffalo, suffering a serious brain injury, bleeding from the ears, and the police walking over him like he was human trash. How are you making sense of those two images?
It is the typical gangster attitude of saying and doing anything and then thinking that you can get away with it. A white cop thought he could kill a Black man, publicly lynch him, all the while keeping his hands in his pocket like he’s a big game hunter. That white cop in Minneapolis killed George Floyd like it was as natural as breathing.

The same thing is true with the white brother in Buffalo who was knocked over by the police. Blood coming out of his ears. The police see him lying there and they just keep on walking. It’s not just the callousness, it’s not just the indifference. It’s the get-away-with-anything quality of the gangster culture that we’re dealing with in America among the powerful.

Trump epitomizes this at the highest level. He thinks he can say and do anything and get away with it. Wall Street believes that it can say and do anything — and they do get away with it. When Trump talks about “law and order,” he does not mean policing Wall Street.

Some of the biggest crimes in the last 50 years in America have been committed by Wall Street with its insider trading, market manipulation, fraudulent activity and predatory lending — much of the latter targeting Black people. How many Wall Street executives go to jail? Basically zero. They walked away with many billions of dollars. That is on the same continuum as what the police did to that white brother in Buffalo and our Black brother in Minneapolis.

What happens when a whole culture becomes infested with gangsters at the very top? Neofascist leaders such as Donald Trump. The neoliberals as a class are complicitous. And that includes Black neoliberals too. It includes the decadent Black leadership class. Gangster culture is a problem across the board in America.

Why do you think the police killing of George Floyd has resonated with so many people in America and around the world? Especially our white brothers and sisters? There is nothing new about police thuggery and brutality against Black and other nonwhite people in America.
I do not believe there is an adequate answer to that question right now. History has a mystery and an unpredictability about it. We could chart out the factors, such as the pandemic and people being on lockdown, which forced them to think about issues many of them would have otherwise ignored.

We could also talk about Depression-like levels of unemployment and underemployment. That almost always generates some kind of social disruption.

We could talk about Trump’s neofascist ways that are more and more difficult to deny. All of those factors play some role, but we never really know why what happened with George Floyd sparked this reaction, as opposed to the tragedy with Eric Garner. The American people saw him die, too. He was lynched publicly. But ultimately, I do not know.

But the crucial thing is we got to fortify ourselves for what is coming in terms of the backlash and keeping the struggle alive.

Given the legal precedents, Derek Chauvin and the other Minneapolis police officers who murdered George Floyd are not going to be convicted.
The system is unable to reform itself. Banning chokeholds is not going to result in police going to jail for their crimes, because the problem is systemic and includes the judges, the prosecutors, the jury and an entire American cultural problem. The system is ultimately too tight and inflexible to allow for the fundamental change that is required for real justice.

This is another example of how and why Martin King Jr. was so very correct when he called for a nonviolent revolution in America. If a society cannot democratically share its wealth, power, respect and resources, it is not going to be a real democracy.

Do people of conscience push the American empire over the cliff and try to remake it, or do they try to hold onto it and fix it?
We must democratize it. Remember that Brother Martin King Jr. turned to Harry Belafonte and said, “I think we’re integrating into a burning house.” Harry said, “Martin, what do we do?” And he said, “We got to become firemen and women.”

Now some people would say, “You’ve got to just burn it down or help to burn it down.” No, you don’t burn down the house when your babies are in there! You don’t burn down the house when your mother is in there!

As the empire is about to go off the cliff, we the people must stop it and hold these greedy Wall Street elites accountable. We have to make sure that the military budget is massively reduced so that America can make a huge investment in its poor communities, especially Black, poor, and brown and indigenous people’s communities.

We must have radical democratization because the American empire does have a history of freedom fighters inside it. That is where we as Black folks come from. Never forget that as the American empire burns down it will be poor Black and brown folks who will suffer first.

We have to fully democratize America to save it. But it can’t be cheap, neoliberal so-called reformism, because that is not going to work. Certainly, it can’t be the neofascists. We are even willing to vote for these milquetoast, mediocre neoliberals in order to push out the fascists, because the situation is so dire with Donald Trump and his Republican Party.

This is why Black Americans and many others are voting for this neoliberal disaster with Joe Biden and the Democrats, because we are trying to push out a neofascist catastrophe. People understand the difference between a disaster and a catastrophe. And the difference is huge.

If one were to take a snapshot of these last few weeks, and Trump’s time in office more generally, it might look as though America is unmoored from time. Violent armed white mobs are patrolling American towns to stop Black Lives Matter activists and anti-fascists from protesting. The Ku Klux Klan is emboldened and encouraged by Donald Trump. Nazis and other fascists have been engaging in terrorist violence. Trumpism is a rejection of the civil rights movement and embraces a new type of Jim Crow. Police are running amok brutalizing nonwhite people and their allies who are marching and protesting for social justice. What advice do you have for people who feel disoriented right now?
Multiracial solidarity is so fundamental in this moment. You must come to terms with your fears because these are not the times for summer soldiers. We got to be all-season love and justice warriors.

When I was in Charlottesville standing in front of white supremacist gangsters in 2017, you look in the eyes of those folks and you saw folks who were willing to live and die to subordinate Black people, just like the Confederate Army did. For all their hatred and the corruption of their souls, they did have a particular kind of courage. But we have to have even more courage in our struggle for love and justice than the courage they have for hatred. White supremacists are willing to live and die for their cause. They really are. I saw it with my own eyes.

Donald Trump’s supporters are willing to die and kill for him. The Democratic Party does not understand what it is up against. How are you making sense of this crisis? And how can good people of conscience prepare themselves for this perilous moment — especially as matters become even more dangerous with the approach of Election Day?
Remember what Martin King Jr. told the marchers in Birmingham. He said, “When you come to this movement, I want you to put on your cemetery clothes, because the people who we are fighting are themselves willing to die. And if we are not willing to die, we’ll never win.”

Remember and draw strength from Martin King Jr. and his wisdom when he said, “I’d rather be dead than afraid.”

We must come to the freedom struggle with our cemetery clothes and be coffin-ready, because these folks are willing to die. You have got to keep fighting. Don’t give up. Don’t sell out. Don’t cave in. You’ve got to stay in motion. You’ve got to keep on pushing and fighting, no matter what. Be faithful until death, until you can’t push no more, and then it’s over. You pass it on to the next generation and that is what is most crucial.

Bill McKibben On What Could Possibly Go Right?

In this episode of What Could Possibly Go Right? Conversations with Cultural Scouts, host Vicki Robins interviews McKibben about our concurrent crises of climate change, the pandemic, and racial injustice, and the lessons we can glean to build solidarity to make systemic change.

 

Big Tech Must Be Broken Up

The combined wealth of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Google’s Sergey Brin, and Larry Page is larger than the combined wealth of the bottom half of the American population.

They are the leaders of a second Gilded Age – ushered in by semiconductors, software and the internet – which has spawned a handful of hi-tech behemoths and crushed competition.

Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, and Microsoft now have the highest market values for all public corporations in America.

As of today, only three countries in the world have a GDP higher than these companies’ combined market value of approximately 4 trillion dollars.

America’s first Gilded Age began in the late nineteenth century with a raft of innovations – railroads, steel production, oil extraction – that culminated in mammoth trusts run by “robber barons” like J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and William Vanderbilt.

The answer then was to break up the railroad, oil, and steel monopolies.

The answer today is the same: Break Up Big Tech.

First: They have a stranglehold on the economy.

Nearly 90 percent of all internet searches now go through Google. Facebook and Google together will account for nearly 60 percent of all digital ad spending in 2019 (where most ad money goes these days).

They’re also the first stops for many Americans seeking news (93 percent of Americans say they receive at least some news online). Amazon is now the first stop for almost half of all American consumers seeking to buy anything online.

With such size comes the power to stifle innovation.

Google uses its search engine to promote its own products and content over those of its competitors, like Yelp. Facebook’s purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram killed off two potential rivals. Apple stifles competition in its App Store.

Partly because of this economic concentration, the rate that new job-creating businesses have formed in the United States has almost halved since 2004, according to the Census Bureau.

Second: Such size also gives these giant corporations political power to get whatever they want, undermining our democracy.

In 2018, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft spent 70.9 million dollars on lobbying and supporting candidates.

As a result, Amazon – the richest corporation in America– paid nothing in federal taxes last year. Meanwhile, it held a bidding war to extort billions from states and cities eager to have its second headquarters.

Not to mention, these companies have tremendous influence over how Americans receive information. And as we’ve seen, Facebook and Google have enabled the manipulation of our elections.

Third: Giant tech companies also hurt the environment. 

Many are failing to reduce greenhouse emissions, as they promised, and are unwilling to commit fully to renewable energy.

Finally: Their huge wealth isn’t being shared with most of their workers. 

Nine in 10 workers in Silicon Valley make less now than they did in 1997, adjusted for inflation. And many are part of the “working homeless.” That is, people who work full time and yet are still homeless.

The answer is to break them up. That way, information would be distributed through a large number of independent channels instead of a centralized platform. And more startups could flourish.

Even one of Facebook’s founders has called for the social media behemoth to be broken up.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced a proposal to do just that. It would force tech giants to open up their platforms to more competition or break up into smaller companies.

Other countries are already taking on Big Tech. The European Union fined Google nearly $3 billion for antitrust violations in 2017.

Let’s be clear: Monopolies aren’t good for anyone except for the monopolists, especially when they can influence our elections and control how Americans receive information.

In this new Gilded Age, we need to respond to them as forcefully as we did to the monopolies of the first Gilded Age and break them up.

What Stands In The Way Of Making The Climate A Priority

Inertia and vested interest, it seems to me, are the two forces that make changing the system for the better so rare. Once things are as they are, some group benefits from them—and that group usually has more of a stake in maintaining the status quo than others have in changing it.

But, as I wrote last week, moments arise when the Zeitgeist is threatened—when what is considered normal, natural, and obvious seems suddenly up for grabs. Right now, traditional policing seems less obvious than it did a month ago, and, though the police unions and the administrators will work hard to make that thought disappear, at least for the moment, the discipline and the passion of the people marching and organizing are actually overcoming the tendency for the focus to drift away. And, as a result, all of a sudden the rest of us notice that a few people have been hard at work all along, imagining why it might not make sense to send combat-ready troops into our cities to deal with the slight but inevitable tensions of living together in a society. Here, for instance, is a series of interviews on CNN about how one might deal with speeders or drunk drivers without tickets or arrests. When you first listen, you think, That’s different—would it really work? But that’s the good thing about moments like this: our minds are open to new possibilities in ways that they usually aren’t.

Inertia and interest are the main reasons our energy systems have been slow to change, even though rapid climate change represents the ultimate in imaginable violence, injustice, and chaos. (Indeed, the evidence shows that, around the world, emissions are “surging” back to typical levels as societies emerge from the post-sheltering phase of the coronavirus pandemic.) Sometimes, the efforts of vested interests are almost comical. Consider, for instance, the fact that many of our homes have a large tank of flammable gas that we burn when we wish to heat our food, resulting not only in global warming but also in levels of indoor air pollution that are often so high they would be illegal were they outside. At some point in our history, this was perhaps an improvement over burning wood or dung. But now we have easy-to-use and more affordable induction cooktops, which make far more sense (at least in new homes, where there’s no sunk investment in cooktops and ranges). Some jurisdictions have started mandating the installation of such electric appliances in new construction, threatening the power of the incumbent inflammable technology. I’ve written in this column before of the California gas-workers’ union that, as the journalist Sammy Roth discovered, threatened a “no-social-distancing” protest in a town, at the height of the pandemic, in an effort to block such a law. Now Rebecca Leber, writing in Mother Jones, reports that the natural-gas industry is systematically paying Instagram influencers to plug its product with a targeted audience of “hispanic millennials,” “design enthusiasts,” “promising families,” and “young city solos.”

But inertia plays as large a role as interest, sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an excellent account of the effort to make the Empire State Building more energy efficient. Aided by gurus from the Rocky Mountain Institute, who have been working on such projects for decades, the management changed out old lights, added insulating film to the building’s sixty-five hundred windows, stuck reflecting foil behind the radiators, and provided “regenerative braking” for the building’s seventy-three elevators, so that, when they slow down, the extra electricity is returned to batteries. These and other changes reduced the building’s electricity use not by five or ten per cent but by forty per cent. Forty is a big number, considering that the tenants still get the same use from their offices, which are as well lit, warmed, cooled, and ventilated as before. We obviously have to install a lot of solar panels and wind turbines in the next decade to meet climate goals, but if we cut electricity use by forty per cent we’d have to install far fewer. That we haven’t done so is, I think, mostly a function of that inertia. If you’re running a building, you have many jobs: finding tenants, collecting and raising rents, providing basic services and maintenance. And business school might not have taught you about regenerative braking. But now you may have to learn: last week, the Times reported that even institutions as sacred as the thirty-year mortgage are under threat, as banks start figuring out they don’t want to be left holding properties that are literally underwater. As the great poet James Russell Lowell once observed, “New occasions teach new duties.” The past seven years have been the hottest ever recorded, and, on Saturday, a spot on the Siberian coast became the northernmost place on Earth to record a temperature of a hundred degrees Fahrenheit; this is a new occasion.

Passing the Mic

R. L. Miller is a California climate activist who, for some years, has run a PAC called Climate Hawks Vote, which tries to elect candidates who are particularly eager to combat global warming. (I’ve sat on the board of the group.) She has also served as chair of the climate caucus in the California Democratic Party, and has just been elected by fellow California Party members to the Democratic National Committee, with the goal of making the climate a priority in the campaign.

What’s the strategy for the D.N.C.?

Top priority right now is the platform! I ran for the D.N.C. on a platform of transparency and accountability. I was particularly fired up about the D.N.C. leadership’s refusal to hold a climate debate.

The D.N.C. Climate Council has released a bold, visionary set of policy recommendations. I helped set up the council, and am on its advisory board, but can’t take credit for drafting the recommendations. Check out the platform!

Separately, the Biden-Sanders unity task forces are finishing up their work and are due to release their recommendations soon. I don’t know whether those recommendations will play into the platform. Everything has been done behind closed doors, and I’ve heard rumors that the recommendations may not be made public. Having said that, there are some very good people on the climate task force, whom I trust to convey the urgency of the climate crisis.

Finally, there’s the official platform-drafting committee of the D.N.C. Apparently, the Climate Council’s work has offended some old-school types at the D.N.C. To be clear, I’ve been elected to the insurgent wing of the D.N.C.! If the official platform committee is doing anything at all, besides sniffing at insurgents, it’s not happening in public. So I believe the D.N.C. needs to be holding public hearings on the platform.

Poll after poll during primary season showed climate change was the top priority for young voters, and second only to health care for Democratic voters in general. Do you sense that the Party is ready to make it a priority, too? What stands in the way?

What stands in the way of making climate a priority is a lot of old-school Democrats—some in trade-union labor and some just plain establishment folk—who think that bold climate action will cost us key states. And they’re badly missing the point. Poll after poll after poll shows that the American people are hungry for bold climate action. People generally see the enormous job potential of a hundred-per-cent clean-energy transition.

And then there’s the scary part. What I’ll be taking to the D.N.C. is a very personal perspective on a climate-fuelled disaster. The Woolsey Fire, of November, 2018, came within five hundred feet of my home. I heard about it early enough, via Twitter, that I was able to evacuate my frail, elderly mother safely. I watched my children’s childhood memories burn down on national television: their preschool, their soccer fields, their neighborhood parks. I remain nervous and jumpy every October, when the hot Santa Ana winds blow. I don’t know if anyone else on the D.N.C. can say they’ve been directly affected by a climate disaster. But it changes one’s perspective.

You keep track of lots of congressional and local races around the country. Who are the candidates you’re watching most fondly?

Everyone who’s not focussed on the Presidential race is working hard on flipping the Senate. At Climate Hawks Vote, we’ve endorsed Mark Kelly, in Arizona, and Jaime Harrison, in South Carolina, both of whom were unopposed in their primaries. We stand with every other green group in the nation for Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, the co-author of the Green New Deal and countless other climate bills.

Probably the best race from a climate perspective is the Colorado Senate primary, on June 30th. Andrew Romanoff is running explicitly on a Green New Deal, and his initial climate ad went viral. Washington Democrats prefer John Hickenlooper, known unfondly as Frackenlooper. Romanoff has recently gained ground on Hickenlooper in the polls.

At the same time, there’s room for more real climate hawks in the House. Too many Democrats, still, pay lip service to the climate crisis, but witness how rank-and-file members of Congress have had to beg leadership for crumbs of clean-energy tax-credit extensions. We’ve endorsed Cathy Kunkel—yes, there are climate hawks in West Virginia—and Christy Smith, in California, and are planning more endorsements.

[I should note, for the record, that I’ve done events with the Kunkel and Romanoff campaigns as well.]

Climate School

Speaking of bracing challenges to business as usual, the invaluable Kate Aronoff offers an update on New York City activists’ plans to turn the fetid penal colony on Rikers Island into a solar farm. A quarter of the island’s real estate could provide enough energy to turn off the gas “peaker” plants scattered around the city, many of them in the communities housing the people of color who, at the moment, end up on Rikers in disproportionate numbers. An alternate plan? Another runway for LaGuardia, which would pretty much define business as usual.

A warming climate causes sharp increases in stillbirths and low-birth-weight babies, according to a new study. During the hot months of the year, a one-degree-Celsius increase in temperature in the week before delivery raised the chances of stillbirth six per cent, and—per usual—the effect was worse for black mothers. “Black moms matter,” one of the study’s authors said. “It’s time to really be paying attention to groups that are the most vulnerable.”

There has been some alarm in the climate-science community these past weeks over a new study suggesting that the planet’s temperature may rise even faster than feared. According to this new research, clouds seem to exacerbate warming, so the damage from doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be a rise of five degrees Celsius, not three. There has been some pushback, too, from climate experts such as nasa’s Gavin Schmidt, who argues that the consensus figures are probably more likely to be accurate, and that any reëvaluation is at best “premature.” It seems to me that this debate overshadows the more important growing sense that any given temperature rise produces more ecological havoc than scientists predicted. With global temperatures up just one degree, for instance, we have seen a hellish heat wave across Siberia. A sobering account in the Guardian reports that, among other things, “swarms of the Siberian silk moth, whose larvae eat at conifer trees, have grown rapidly in the rising temperatures.” A moth expert named Vladimir Soldatov told a reporter, “In all my long career, I’ve never seen moths so huge and growing so quickly.”

“Everywhere I have been—inside BP, as well as outside—I have come away with one inescapable conclusion,” Bernard Looney, the C.E.O. of the British oil giant, said in a speech in February. “We have got to change.” Maybe the company is set on shifting, as the Times reported last week, but Amy Westervelt—whose Drilled blog is an endless source of good information—got her hands on a video of Looney talking to his own troops. “We’re probably going to be in oil and gas for decades to come,” he says, “because how else is that eight-billion-dollar dividend going to get serviced?”

An interesting examination by Ted Nordhaus and Seaver Wang of the reasons that some East Asian countries may be turning away from nuclear energy proposes that the trend may be less because of the technology and more because of nuclear power’s historical ties to regimes now out of favor.

The Irish government seems close to becoming a world climate leader: if the various parties agree, a new “programme for government” would not only mandate seven-per-cent annual emissions cuts but would also stop all new exploration for oil and gas in Irish waters, and would ban the importation of fracked gas from the United States. (Though there’s always a local angle: the proposal doesn’t put a solid end date on the practice of burning peat.)

In the United Kingdom, the veteran campaigner Jonathon Porritt, whose activism stretches back to the nineteen-eighties, has a new book out, “Hope in Hell,” which argues that this could be the “climate decade”—but only if we summon “a sense of intergenerational solidarity as older generations come to understand their own obligation to secure a safer world for their children and grandchildren.”

Scoreboard

A rather large win this past week: the Vatican Catholics to divest from fossil-fuel companies—indeed, to “shun” them. The Vatican Bank said that it is following this advice.

Warming Up

If there’s one thing this newsletter appreciates, it’s good organizing, especially when no one sees it coming. Apparently, K-pop stans played no small role in persuading the Trump campaign that massive crowds of true believers were heading for its Tulsa kickoff rally, instead of the less-than-sell-out number that actually showed up. I think BTS would almost certainly sell out the B.O.K. Center, and with luck they’d perform “Not Today.”

“You want a new world, too? Oh, baby, yes I want it.”

 

Stephanie Kelton On Modern Monetary Theory

Kelton joins Slate Money’s Emily Peck, Felix Salmon, and Anna Szymanski for a long awaited episode on Modern Monetary Theory. She answers their many questions about MMT and discusses her book The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy.

 

Dr. Cornel West Interview On ‘Useful Idiots’

Dr. Cornel West joins Rolling Stone’s Useful Idiots  for a wide-ranging conversation about his new podcast The Tightrope, what went wrong for Bernie’s campaign and why he had endorsed Sanders again in 2020, and the tactical efficacy of violent vs. nonviolent protesting.

 

Learn To Love Trillion-Dollar Deficits

Last week, a bipartisan group of 60 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to congressional leadership, raising concerns about mounting debt and deficits that have come as a result of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. “We cannot ignore the pressing issue of the national debt,” they wrote. The letter warned of “irreparable damage to our country” if nothing is done to stem the tide of red ink. Senator Mike Enzi, Republican of Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, echoed their concerns.

It’s an ominous sign for the smaller businesses and millions of unemployed Americans whose survival may very well depend on continued government support in this crisis. While these Democratic and Republican lawmakers stopped short of calling for immediate austerity measures, their remarks demonstrate that they have fallen prey to what I call the deficit myth: that our nation’s debt and deficits are on an unsustainable path and that we need to develop a plan to fix the problem.

As a proponent of what’s called Modern Monetary Theory and as a former chief economist for the Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, intimately familiar with how public finance actually works, I am not worried about the recent multitrillion-dollar surge in spending.

But there was a time when it would have rattled me too.

I understand the deficit myth because in the early part of my career in economics I, too, bought into the conventional way of thinking. I was taught that the federal government should manage its finances in ways that resemble good old-fashioned household budgeting, that it should hold spending in line with revenues and avoid adding debt whenever possible.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain — President Ronald Reagan’s partner in the conservative revolution of the late 20th century — captured these sentiments in a seminal speech in 1983, declaring that “the state has no source of money other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wishes to spend more, it can only do so by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more.”

That thinking sounds reasonable to people, including me when I first absorbed it. But Mrs. Thatcher’s articulation of the deficit myth concealed a crucial reality: the monetary power of a currency-issuing government. Governments in nations that maintain control of their own currencies — like Japan, Britain and the United States, and unlike Greece, Spain and Italy — can increase spending without needing to raise taxes or borrow currency from other countries or investors. That doesn’t mean they can spend without limit, but it does mean they don’t need to worry about “finding the money,” as many politicians state, when they wish to spend more. Politics aside, the only economic constraints currency-issuing states face are inflation and the availability of labor and other material resources in the real economy.

It is true that in a bygone era, the U.S. government didn’t have full control of its currency. That’s because the U.S. dollar was convertible into gold, which forced the federal government to constrain its spending to protect the stock of its gold reserves. But President Richard Nixon famously ended the gold standard in August 1971, freeing the government to take full advantage of its currency-issuing powers. And yet, roughly a half-century later, top political leaders in the United States still talk as Ms. Thatcher did and legislate as though we, the taxpayers, are the ultimate source of the government’s money.

In 1997, during my early training as a professional economist, someone shared a little book titled “Soft Currency Economics” with me. Its author, Warren Mosler, a successful Wall Street investor, argued that when it came to money, debt and taxes, our politicians (and most economists) were getting almost everything wrong. I read it and wasn’t convinced. One of Mr. Mosler’s claims was that the money the government collects isn’t directly used to pay its bills. I had studied economics with world-renowned economists at Cambridge University, and none of my professors had ever said anything like that.

In 1998, I visited Mr. Mosler at his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., where I spent hours listening to him explain his thinking. He began by referring to the U.S. dollar as “a simple public monopoly.” Since the U.S. government is the sole issuer of the currency, he said, it was silly to think of Uncle Sam as needing to get dollars from the rest of us.

My head spun. Then he told me a story: Mr. Mosler had a beautiful beachfront property and all the luxuries of life anyone could hope to enjoy. He also had a family that included two teenagers, who resisted doing household chores. Mr. Mosler wanted the yard mowed, the beds made, the dishes done, the cars washed and so on. To encourage them to help out, he promised to compensate them by paying for their labor with his business cards. Nothing much got done.

“Why would we work for your business cards? They’re not worth anything!” they told him. So Mr. Mosler changed tactics. Instead of offering to compensate them for volunteering to pitch in around the house, he demanded a payment of 30 of his business cards, each month, with some chores worth more than others. Failure to pay would result in a loss of privileges: no more TV, use of the swimming pool or shopping trips to the mall.

Mr. Mosler had essentially imposed a tax that could be paid only with his own monogrammed paper. And he was prepared to enforce it. Now the cards were worth something. Before long, the kids were scurrying around, tidying up their bedrooms, the kitchen and the yard — working to maintain the lifestyle they wanted.

This, broadly speaking, is how our monetary system works. It is true that the dollars in your pocket are, in a physical sense, just pieces of paper. It’s the state’s ability to make and enforce its tax laws that sustains a demand for them, which in turn makes those dollars valuable. It’s also how the British Empire and others before it were able to effectively rule: conquer, erase the legitimacy of a given people’s original currency, impose British currency on the colonized, then watch how the entire local economy begins to revolve around British currency, interests and power. Taxes exist for many reasons, but they exist mainly to give value to a state’s otherwise worthless tokens.

Coming to terms with this was jarring — a Copernican moment. By the time I developed this subject into my first published, peer-reviewed academic paper, I realized that my prior understanding of government finance had been wrong.

In 2020, Congress has been showing us — in practice if not in its rhetoric — exactly how M.M.T. works: It committed trillions of dollars this spring that in the conventional economic sense it did not “have.” It didn’t raise taxes or borrow from China to come up with dollars to support our ailing economy. Instead, lawmakers simply voted to pass spending bills, which effectively ordered up trillions of dollars from the government’s bank, the Federal Reserve. In reality, that’s how all government spending is paid for.

M.M.T. simply describes how our monetary system actually works. Its explanatory power doesn’t depend on ideology or political party. Rather, the theory clarifies what is economically possible and shifts the terrain of policy debates currently hamstrung by nagging questions of so-called pay-fors: Instead of worrying about the number that falls out of the budget box at the end of each fiscal year, M.M.T. asks us to focus on the limits that matter.

At any point in time, every economy faces a sort of speed limit, regulated by the availability of its real productive resources — the state of technology and the quantity and quality of its land, workers, factories, machines and other materials. If any government tries to spend too much into an economy that’s already running at full speed, inflation will accelerate. So there are limits. However, the limits are not in our government’s ability to spend money or to sustain large deficits. What M.M.T. does is distinguish the real limits from wrongheaded, self-imposed constraints.

An understanding of Modern Monetary Theory matters greatly now. It could free policymakers not only to act boldly amid crises but also to invest boldly in times of more stability. It matters because to lift America out of its current economic crisis, Congress does not need to “find the money,” as many say, in order to spend more. It just needs to find the votes and the political will.

After The Floyd Murder: Are We Ready To Change?

The murder of George Floyd at the hands of a policeman unleashed a wave of protest across the United States. He was not the first unarmed Black man or woman to be murdered by an officer using unwarranted deadly force (there are about 100 per year). Nor is it the first time that we’ve seen mass protests across the US in response to racial injustice. I have witnessed such events repeatedly in my lifetime, but this time it feels different.

America has been defined by racial injustice from its very beginnings. We were born with the original sin of slavery and fought a bloody civil war to end this evil institution. In its aftermath, little was done to compensate the millions of freed black citizens. And within a few short decades they fell victim to a new and brutal system of racial prejudice and imposed discrimination that denied Black Americans equal rights and economic opportunity, locking many in poverty that has lasted generations. At the heart of this system was organised violence that worked to maintain inequality and the subjugation of an entire race. A few examples: During a 30 year period, just a century ago, over 4,000 Black Americans were lynched in acts of vigilante terrorism; and less than a century ago, in my city of Washington, DC, two entire neighbourhoods of hundreds of black families were forcibly evicted from their homes in acts of ethnic cleansing to make way for two all-white schools. All of this is our history and must be acknowledged because it lays the predicate for our present-day struggles.

I came of age during the civil rights movement. I marched for open housing in the 1960’s and worked with an anti-racism organisation protesting racial injustice in Philadelphia in the late 60’s and early 70’s. And I witnessed the urban unrest that devastated major cities in 1968 in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

When I founded the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC) in the 1970s, I was privileged to get to know most of those great African American leaders who had been Dr King’s colleagues. Those I did not meet through the PHRC, I was able to work with during my involvement in Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.

I was honoured to have been invited with many of these same leaders to a small meeting in the White House with President Clinton to discuss his planned “One America” initiative, national dialogue on race. The concept was a good one, but after a few outings, interest petered out and the project died.

During the ups and downs of these decades, there were moments when we felt that progress was made. Legislation was passed guaranteeing civil rights, voting rights, measures to end segregation in schools and housing, and affirmative action. We even elected our first African American president, causing some to naively assume that we had, as a society, finally transcended our racial divide.

But after each step forward, the reality of racism came roaring back smacking us hard. There were reminders at every turn, from a Republican Congress determined to roll back efforts to address racial inequity, to more wonton killings of black people in our communities with no consequences and the resultant racial unrest.

The simple fact of life in America is that despite some real progress made since the time when Dr King lamented that two Americas, one black and one white, that very real division still defines our present-day reality. Most American cities are still deeply racially divided. Inequities remain in income, employment, housing, health, education, criminal justice and opportunity. The statistics in each of these categories are staggering and should be disturbing to all Americans. The bottom line is that if you are born into a white upper-middle class family, the odds are that you will go to a better school, receive a better education, get a better job and live a longer life than a child born into a black family. Just one example of the byproduct of this sustained inequity: As a result of this denial of opportunity and other deformities created by racial inequality, while African American males comprise 6.5 per cent of the overall population, they are 40.5 per cent of the prison population.

I’m writing this almost two weeks after the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer. As I said at the beginning this article, his death comes on the heels of dozens of other recent shocking murders of black men and women at the hands of law enforcement officers, like Eric Garner, Michael Brown, or Breonna Taylor, or random white men who saw a black man in their neighbourhood, like Trayvon Martin or Ahmaud Arbery. Each time, there was outrage. There were protests and demands for justice. When officers were involved, police departments responded defensively to protect “their own”. And when there were demonstrations, all too often police responded with such shocking displays of military hardware that some American cities looked like foreign battlegrounds.

There are some additional problems that must be noted. Because police departments have repeatedly shielded their officers from accountability, they have developed a sense of impunity. In addition, a culture of aggression has taken hold, in which officers are trained to adopt a hostile manner, to shoot first and ask questions later. A recent study of police violence in Minneapolis, the city where Floyd was murdered, showed that police have used violence against citizens 11,500 times since 2015, with a black person five times more likely to be the victim than a white person. As a result, in too many instances, many black citizens do not see police as their protectors, but as their persecutors.

Coupled with this is the growing militarisation of local police departments. They have been supplied with military hardware and vehicles. Many police departments have gone to Israel to learn techniques from the Israelis, which only contributes to the sense that they see themselves and are increasingly seen by the publics they are serving as an “occupying army” in a battle zone, using tear gas and rubber bullets.

We have seen this before, but not as we see it today playing out on such a massive scale.

The difference today is not just that the protests continue after so many days and nights of unrest, but that they have come to involve millions of Americans, black and white, rich and poor. Something has changed, and for the better.

After witnessing the horrible murder of George Floyd, and feeling isolated by the COVID-19 lockdown, Americans crave release and desire to be a part of something larger than themselves. It is also, without a doubt, a reaction to the behavior of President Trump, who exploits the unrest to inflame his base. Using now familiar tactics, he proclaims himself the law and order candidate, decries lawlessness, and casts even peaceful protesters as “terrorists”.

In one shocking display, Trump ordered federal troops to forcibly remove peaceful protesters using tear gas and rubber bullets from in front of the White House. Then, heavily guarded by troops and police, he strode across Lafayette Park to St John’s Church for a photo opportunity, holding up a bible. The entire affair was so disturbing that it was denounced not only by mainstream religious leaders, but by many of his evangelical religious supporters. Antics like his decision to use the military against Americans, and his tweets of incitement are, without a doubt, contributing to the continuing protests.

Finally, as we enter the third decade of the 21st century, it is important to recognise that while structural racism persists, there is a change in the American people. Young people, black, brown, and white, have a very different view of the world and each other. These are kids who grew up inspired by President Barack Obama and traumatised by mass killings. They are not only tolerant of racial diversity, they celebrate it. They not only find inequality and injustice unacceptable, they feel empowered to act against it.

Some commentators try to find similarities between the protests of the 1960s and those of the present day, but one difference stands out. It is true that, back then, there were civil rights and anti-war demonstrations. But with few exceptions, the crossover, especially among white youth, was limited. There were some courageous white students and white-led left organisations that played a role in the struggle to end segregation. But on campuses across the country, white students were more focused on Vietnam and various countercultural movements.

Today is different. The anti-racism protests against police violence and racial inequality have brought together black and white, rich and poor. They are calling for real, fundamental change and it is a hopeful sign that we may be ready, as a society, to address the legacy of our original sin and bury it, once and for all. It will not be easy to change both deeply entrenched racial inequities and endemic police violence. But my hope is that we are on the road moving forward.

New Unity Needed Amid Challenges Of New Global Age

Globalization is not ending but is decisively changing its form. The great tectonic plates that undergird our world – technological, geopolitical, and environmental – are shifting dramatically, causing political and social earthquakes around the world.

Many governments can’t cope; many institutions are cracking. Throughout the world, we will have to scramble to reshape our institutions for a dramatically changed global landscape.

Deep upheavals of globalization are not new, but are always tumultuous. The great upheavals of past globalizations – I count our new era as the seventh age of globalization – have been paced by changes in technology, institutions, and nature.

The end of the last ice age and the birth of agriculture gave rise to a new global age; the printing press and Columbus’ voyages of discovery to another; and the inventions of the steam engine coupled with global capitalism to yet another. With these discoveries came new forms of politics, economics and global competition, and, all too often, conflict.

Ours is the new digital age, which began in the 1930s when the great British genius Alan Turing envisioned the possibility of universal computation based on sequences of 0’s and 1’s, and when he and polymath John von Neumann began to put that vision into operation during World War II. The computer, the postwar transistor, then integrated circuits, fiber optics and Moore’s law, the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years, all helped to turn Turing’s vision into a new digital age.

This technological revolution is now disrupting every aspect of economic and social life. We are in the new world of e-everything: commerce, education, governance, production, healthcare and culture. COVID-19 is the world’s first e-epidemic. We work online from home, track the virus’s path on mobile apps, and scour the world’s social media for tips on how to stay alive.

The digital revolution is the key to understanding the geopolitical revolution as well, the one that has brought China to the front ranks of global power, diminished the United States in relative terms as digital technologies have spread worldwide, and opened the world of social media, fake news, and electronic tribalism and e-terror brilliantly predicted a half-century ago by futurist and philosopher Marshall McLuhan.

The American Century is now over and gone, in ashes as the US cities are again aflame in protest at persistent racism, vast inequalities and shocking failures of governance, especially of the US administration. While America no longer occupies the global center stage, no single country or region or alliance will replace it.

Like it or not, and many do not, we truly live in McLuhan’s global village. If the new century “belongs” to anyone, it is to the new technologies and to the tech giants.

The digital age has already fundamentally reshaped the world economy, and thereby the physical environment, through the birth of global supply chains, global logistics, mass travel and trade, and worldwide industrialization and agriculture.

Global economic growth has also brought about mass deforestation, the mass destruction of land and marine habitats, the collapse of biodiversity, and the massive emission of greenhouse gases that are destabilizing the global climate. It has pushed humanity into new ecological niches wherein humans and animals exchange novel viruses, giving rise to new emerging infectious diseases such as the COVID-19 virus that is ravaging societies everywhere.

But COVID-19 is just the latest of many such zoonotic diseases, including SARS, MERS and Ebola. There will be others, too.

It is not surprising, therefore, that our current upheavals have hit a world that lacks a leader to face them. The age of US leadership has passed, but the need for global cooperation has only increased. US President Donald Trump’s calls for America First are naive, reactionary and confused at a time when global challenges require global-scale solutions.

China rightly favors international cooperation but needs to convince many worried nations that its vast powers and technological might will be put to use for the global good. Europe is divided in its politics, but is mostly united in the view that the world will need a stronger global system to address the current upheavals.

The transitions from one global age to the next have typically been periods of geopolitical competition and conflict. Nations scramble to harness the new technologies for wealth, power and glory.

Yet brazen competition today, in a thermonuclear age beset by pandemic diseases, environmental devastation and the fragilities of global supply chains and infrastructure vulnerable to collapse and attack, could end us all. Only a shared vision, not a new scramble for power in the current disarray, can underpin peace and survival.

The new age of globalization should therefore not forsake the great accomplishments of the preceding age, including the US-led creation of the United Nations. The UN Charter is still a sound basis for global security, albeit one that must be updated to move beyond the special privileges accorded to the five “permanent powers” of the UN Security Council.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still the world’s moral charter, and one that is the product of many cultures, as it combines Western enlightenment values with Confucian wisdom and Islamic insights. It still stands today as a great beacon of hope and shared global values.

Yet the great UN innovations of the 1940s are no longer sufficient 75 years on. Our new global age needs to build a new unity of nations for the 21st century, ready to rebuild from the current COVID-19 crisis on the basis of social justice and environmental sustainability.

The most important concept will surely be global solidarity, or as the UN puts it, “leaving no one behind”.With pandemic diseases, global climate change and the ongoing degradation of the world’s ecosystems, no region will be safe unless all are safe.

Even through the flames today engulfing America’s cities, we can discern a new path for a new age. By looking back to history we can look forward. Globalization will not go away, but it can and must be better managed.

There will be no solution that rejects technology, only solutions that harness technology for the common good. Economy and politics are not separate spheres, but are inevitably joined together, for better or for ill.

The two faces of politics – as a naked struggle for power or as a quest for the common good – have always been with us. Well-being can be secured only when we choose politics and economics for the common good, which is the most important lesson for our time.