Connect with us

Politics

Italy’s Response to Coronavirus Outbreak Is Mired in Politics

Published

on

MILAN — On the sixth floor of a skyscraper, two dozen epidemiologists and public health experts form the nerve center of the effort to contain a coronavirus outbreak in Italy that has alarmed Europe and put the wealthy Lombardy region at the center of global concern.

They work the phones, pore over digital maps and study computer screens. They update databases with confirmed cases. They track those whom infected people might have had contact with. They coordinate with hospitals and laboratories to verify test results, sometimes for people with no symptoms.

But their efforts have also fueled a political and scientific quarrel that may prove important to how Italy and other countries confront the virus: How much is too much when it comes to containment efforts?

It’s not every day that Italy is accused of being overly efficient, but Lombardy’s response has, unusually, been criticized for its vigor at a time when most governments are worried about being accused of doing too little.

Much of that criticism has come from rival Italian officials at the national level, no doubt concerned about Italy’s blighted image — and their own — as the number of cases in the country has spiked to 650, with 17 deaths.

Cases possibly linked to Lombardy have appeared in Austria, Switzerland, and the Canary Islands of Spain, adding to the impression that the region is the European source in a new stage of global contagion.

“Italy is a safe place,’’ Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, a rival of Lombardy politicians who has himself faced intense criticism for the government’s handling of the virus, asserted defensively this week, “maybe safer than others.”

There is no doubt that Italy is confronting a significant outbreak. But beneath the political squabbling is a deeper dispute over whether Lombardy’s response has made the problem appear worse than it is.

With coronavirus spreading more widely, political leaders across the world are coming under greater pressure, with many trying to tamp down anxiety that is damaging stock markets, tourism and businesses.

Some leaders are lashing out. On Wednesday, President Trump accused journalists of making the situation “look as bad as possible.”

As a result, the dispute in Lombardy has taken on dimensions in politics, epidemiology and crisis communications that are likely to have consequences in any broader outbreak.

At its heart, the debate centers on testing.

The central government argues that other regions within Italy and other countries have respected global guidelines by focusing tests on people showing symptoms of the virus.

@charset “UTF-8”;
/***********************
B A S E S T Y L E S
************************/
/*************************************
T Y P E : C L A S S M I X I N S
**************************************/
/* Headline */
/* Leadin */
/* Byline */
/* Dateline */
/* Alert */
/* Subhed */
/* Body */
/* Caption */
/* Leadin */
/* Credit */
/* Label */
/**********
S I Z E S
***********/
/********************
T Y P O G R A P H Y
*********************/
.g-headline,
.interactive-heading,
#interactive-leadin,
.g-subhed
font-family: “nyt-cheltenham”, georgia, “times new roman”, times, serif;

.g-alert, .g-alert.g-body, .g-alert .g-body, .g-alert_link,
.g-byline,
.g-caption, .g-caption_bold, .g-caption_heading,
.g-chart,
.g-credit, .g-credit_bullet,
.g-dateline,
.g-label, .g-label_white,
.g-leadin,
.g-refer, .g-refer.g-body, .g-refer .g-body,
.g-table-text
font-family: “nyt-franklin”, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;

.g-body, .g-body_bullet, .g-body_link
font-family: “nyt-imperial”, georgia, “times new roman”, times, serif;

/* Light text */
.g-asset-leadin.g-caption_heading,
.g-chart,
.g-headline,
.interactive-heading,
.g-label, .g-label_white,
.g-leadin, #interactive-leadin,
.g-table-text
font-weight: 300;

/* Normal text */
/* Medium text */
.g-alert, .g-alert.g-body, .g-alert .g-body, .g-alert_link,
.g-body, .g-body_bullet, .g-body_link,
.g-caption,
.g-credit,
.g-dateline,
.g-refer, .g-refer.g-body, .g-refer .g-body, .g-refer_link,
.g-subhed
font-weight: 500;

/* Bold text */
.g-byline,
.g-caption_bold, .g-caption_heading,
.g-chart-header,
.g-credit_bullet,
.g-subhed,
.g-table-heading
font-weight: 700;

strong
font-weight: 700;

/*
Type Mixins
*************************/
/* MODULE : GUIDE */
/**********************/
.g-inlineguide-list-circle p,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle div,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle li
position: relative;
padding-left: 1.75em;

@media (min-width: 740px)
.g-inlineguide-list-circle p,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle div,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle li
padding-left: 0;

.g-inlineguide-list-circle p:before,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle div:before,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle li:before
position: absolute;
content: “•”;
top: 2px;
left: 1em;
font-size: 15px;
line-height: 24px;

@media (min-width: 600px)
.g-inlineguide-list-circle p:before,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle div:before,
.g-inlineguide-list-circle li:before
top: 3px;
left: -1em;

.g-inlineguide
background-color: #F4F5F2;
text-align: left;
margin-top: 30px;
margin-bottom: 30px;
height: 380px;
transition: height 0.5s;

@media (min-width: 740px)
.g-inlineguide
max-width: 600px;
margin: 10px auto;
border-radius: 10px;

#truncate-content
transition: height 0.5s;
height: 300px;

.g-inlineguide-container
margin: 0 20px 0px 20px;
padding: 20px 0 7px 0;

@media (min-width: 740px)
.g-inlineguide-container
margin: 0 35px 0px 35px;

.g-inlineguide-container-wrapper
height: 100%;

.g-inlineguide-bottom
display: -ms-flexbox;
display: flex;
-ms-flex-align: center;
align-items: center;
-ms-flex-line-pack: center;
align-content: center;
-ms-flex-pack: center;
justify-content: center;
top: 10px;

.g-inlineguide-content
position: relative;
height: 300px;
max-width: 520px;
overflow: hidden;

.g-inlineguide-logo
margin: 0 0 10px 0;

.g-inlineguide-date
font-family: “nyt-franklin”, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 500;
line-height: 25px;
color: #666666;
max-width: 600px;
margin: 5px auto 15px;

#g-inlineguide-headline
font-family: “nyt-franklin”, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 20px;
max-width: 600px;

@media (min-width: 740px)
#g-inlineguide-headline
font-size: 16px;

/* LINKS */
#g-inlineguide-id a
text-decoration: none;

.g-inlineguide a
color: #326891;
text-decoration: none;
border-bottom: 2px solid #CCD9E3;

.g-inlineguide a:visited
color: #333;
text-decoration: none;
border-bottom: 2px solid #ddd;

.g-inlineguide a:hover
border-bottom: none;

/* LIST */
.g-inlineguide-list-header
font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, “times new roman”, times, serif;
font-weight: 500;
font-size: 20px;
line-height: 25px;
margin-top: 5px;
margin-bottom: 5px;

@media (min-width: 740px)
.g-inlineguide-list-header
font-size: 26px;
line-height: 30px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
margin-top: 10px;

.g-inlineguide-item-list
font-size: 15px;
line-height: 20px;
font-family: “nyt-franklin”, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: 500;

#g-inlineguide-item-list li
margin-bottom: 10px;
padding-left: 15px;
line-height: 20px;

@media (min-width: 740px)
#g-inlineguide-item-list li
line-height: 22px;
font-size: 16px;

#g-inlineguide-item-list li:before
color: #333333;
margin-left: -15px;
margin-right: 10px;
top: 0;
font-size: 16px;

@media (min-width: 740px)
#g-inlineguide-item-list li:before
left: 1em;

ul.g-inlineguide-list
max-width: 600px;
margin: auto;

.g-inlineguide-line-truncated
background-image: linear-gradient(180deg, transparent, #f4f5f2);
background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(270deg, rgba(255, 255, 255, 0), #f4f5f2);
height: 50px;
border-bottom: 0.5px solid #dcddda;
width: 90%;
margin-top: -55px;
position: absolute;

@media (min-width: 740px)
.g-inlineguide-line-truncated
max-width: 520px;
width: 90%;

/* viewport example
.g-element
max-width: 100%;
@include viewport(‘small’) // 600px
max-width: 90%;

@include viewport(‘medium’) // 740px
max-width: 80%;

@include viewport(‘large’) // 1024px
max-width: 70%;

*/
.g-inlineguide-truncate-button
display: -ms-flexbox;
display: flex;
-ms-flex-align: center;
align-items: center;
-ms-flex-line-pack: center;
align-content: center;
-ms-flex-pack: center;
justify-content: center;
margin: 10px 0 0 28px;

.g-inlineguide-truncate-button-text
font-family: “nyt-franklin”, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
margin-top: 9px;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 650;
line-height: 28px;
/* or 215% */
letter-spacing: 0.03em;
text-transform: uppercase;
color: #333333;
background-color: transparent;

#g-inlineguide-expand-carat-transform
margin-top: 8px;
width: 28px;
height: 28px;
margin-left: 3px;
background-color: #F4F5F2;
display: -ms-flexbox;
display: flex;
-ms-flex-align: center;
align-items: center;
-ms-flex-pack: center;
justify-content: center;

.g-inlineguide-expand-carat-transform-show
transform: rotate(180deg);
transition: transform 0.5s ease;

.g-inlineguide-line
border: 0.5px solid #dcddda;
width: 100%;
max-width: 600px;
margin: auto;
margin-top:20px;

The Coronavirus Outbreak

  • Answers to your most common questions:

    Updated Feb. 26, 2020

    • What is a coronavirus?
      It is a novel virus named for the crownlike spikes that protrude from its surface. The coronavirus can infect both animals and people and can cause a range of respiratory illnesses from the common cold to more dangerous conditions like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS.
    • How do I keep myself and others safe?
      Washing your hands frequently is the most important thing you can do, along with staying at home when you’re sick.
    • What if I’m traveling?
      The C.D.C. haswarned older and at-risk travelers to avoid Japan, Italy and Iran. The agency also has advised against all nonessential travel to South Korea and China.
    • Where has the virus spread?
      The virus, which originated in Wuhan, China, has sickened more than 80,000 people in at least 33 countries, including Italy, Iran and South Korea.
    • How contagious is the virus?
      According to preliminary research, it seems moderately infectious, similar to SARS, and is probably transmitted through sneezes, coughs and contaminated surfaces. Scientists have estimated that each infected person could spread it to somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5 people without effective containment measures.
    • Who is working to contain the virus?
      World Health Organization officials have been working with officials in China, where growth has slowed. But this week, as confirmed cases spiked on two continents, experts warned that the world was not ready for a major outbreak.

.cls-1fill:#111;

But according to the Health Ministry, Lombardy has also carried out swab tests on people who are more likely to have come into contact with infected people, even if they have no symptoms themselves.

Experts at the World Health Organization and Italy’s Health Ministry said in interviews that it was possible that Lombardy had created an inflated perception of the threat by including in case totals people who tested positive for the virus but who had not gotten sick. But many scientists say that attempting to track even mild cases of the virus is essential to containing its spread.

On Thursday, after insisting that their comprehensive approach to testing was the right one, Lombardy said it would now conform with national and international guidelines and test only people showing symptoms.

But the numbers tallied in Lombardy’s approach have already made Italy a focus of international concern.

Not everyone who contracts the virus gets sick, a fact that is proving a quandary for scientists and officials trying to formulate a measured response.

Walter Ricciardi, an Italian member of the executive council of the World Health Organization who was recently named councilor of the Italian Health Ministry, said that only a small percentage of people who contracted the virus were infected by people showing no symptoms who did not know they were carriers, he said.

Richard Pebody, another expert at the World Health Organization, said the organization did not consider asymptomatic transmission a significant factor in the outbreak.

But as the epidemic spreads uncertainty is growing. Other experts have raised concerns that carriers without symptoms could be spreading the virus, and the W.H.O. was under pressure to revise its guidelines, which it was expected to do on Thursday.

The Italian Health Ministry said that counting asymptomatic cases only served to cause alarm.

Of the 650 cases diagnosed in Italy, 403 were in Lombardy, according to regional officials. Of those cases, Lombardy officials said on Thursday, 216 had been treated in a hospital, with 41 requiring intensive care.

That means that 187 of those who tested positive for the virus exhibited only mild symptoms or none at all. In addition, at least 37 of those who did are now healthy and have been discharged.

But other top Italian medical officials warned that while it was possible that asymptomatic people might be less contagious, because, for instance, they cough less, very little is known about the new virus and how it behaves.

“Evidence is lacking,” said Giovanni Rezza, the head of epidemiology at the leading scientific organization of Italy’s National Health Service.

Lombardy officials said they preferred to know who had the virus.

“Either you hide problems under a carpet, or you lift the carpet and you clean the floor,” Attilio Fontana, the region’s president, said in an interview in his office, with views over a foggy and eerily quiet Milan, 29 floors above the virus hunters.

Mr. Fontana is a leading member of the League party, led by the nationalist Matteo Salvini, who has not been shy about leveraging the crisis to pursue his aim of bringing down Mr. Conte’s government. Mr. Salvini has argued in recent days that Mr. Conte had fumbled the response to the crisis and needed to be replaced.

Mr. Fontana said he disagreed with Mr. Conte’s “way of dealing with the crisis.” The region’s tests were necessary, he argued, suggesting that if other places tested as rigorously, they would find more cases, too.

“I don’t exclude that even in your country if they did a serious and attentive epidemiologic analysis they would find more than what the actual infected are,” he said, referring to the United States. Numbers were high in Italy, he added, “because we do a lot of checks.”

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control is currently limiting testing to those who have symptoms and who have recently traveled to China or had contact with someone who tested positive for the virus.

The uncertainty surrounding the virus has opened fertile ground for political sniping, as politicians engaged in power struggles to shift blame.

Mr. Conte, the prime minister, had questioned Lombardy’s approach in an effort to project a sense of control.

He infuriated regional officials by blaming a Lombardy hospital for the virus’s spread and saying on Tuesday that “exaggerated’’ swab tests ‘‘would end up dramatizing the emergency.”

Lombardy officials had defended their methods.

“We don’t understand what he is talking about,” Mr. Fontana said.

In turn, he criticized Mr. Conte, saying that the prime minister should have listened to a proposal, made in early February, that schoolchildren returning from China stay at home for 14 days.

“They told us it was a racist behavior and they did not want to put in place this little precaution,” Mr. Fontana said.

Experts have speculated that the coronavirus outbreak in Lombardy could be attributed to the region’s close business ties with China or its densely packed population.

In search of Italy’s “patient zero,” Mr. Fontana said officials were pursuing “an Italian citizen with Chinese origins” who visited China around January.

He said that person then came into contact with someone who then “went to Codogno” — one of the Lombardy towns on lockdown. That second person is thought to have had contact with a 38-year-old Italian man, who remains in intensive care.

That man is believed to have spread the virus widely, prompting the lockdown of several towns near Milan.

In Milan’s central train station this week, people were eager to leave the city.

Donatella Monti and her children waited for a train back to Rome, all of them wearing masks bought in a hardware store.

Ms. Monti said that many in Lombardy seemed unfazed by the outbreak, but that her pediatrician back south advised her to keep her young daughter away from school for 10 days. “I’ll go to school with my mask on!” her daughter protested.

In Mr. Fontana’s office, his aides quipped that the masks “didn’t do a thing” to stop the virus and that the Milanese only wore masks during carnival.

But late Wednesday, Mr. Fontana posted a video on Facebook in which he explained that one of his aides had tested positive for the virus.

The governor said that he himself had tested negative, but that he would nonetheless “live in a sort of auto isolation” for the next two weeks, avoiding public events and news conferences and wearing a mask in the office.

“So when you see me in the coming days, I will be like this,” he said, pulling a green mask over his face. “Don’t be scared. It’s always me.”

Emma Bubola contributed reporting from Milan, and Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome.

Source link

Politics

The Atlantic Politics Daily: Trump’s Miracle Drug – The Atlantic

Published

on


It’s Monday, April 6. In today’s newsletter: What is actually known about hydroxychloroquine, the drug the president is fixated on recommending for COVID-19. Plus: The pandemic seems to be hitting people of color the hardest.

*

« TODAY IN POLITICS »

(The Atlantic)

Trump’s Miracle Drug

President Trump has tweeted some very questionable information about the coronavirus, most recently hyping “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN,” as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Our staff writer James Hamblin cautions:

While some very early evidence has shown that hydroxychloroquine may influence the course of COVID-19, Trump is overriding his top medical adviser and minimizing serious risks by encouraging Americans to try the drug right now. This brazen dispensation of medical advice from the president is dangerous in ways beyond the potential harm of the drug itself.  

What is known about hydroxychloroquine, then?

It is unclear how hydroxychloroquine would work to treat COVID-19, but the drug is one of many now being urgently studied for the treatment of the disease. The drugs being tested include those that could block viral replication, such as remdesivir, and others that may target the way the virus binds to human cells. Still other drugs aim to modulate a person’s immune response, among them a class of drugs known as IL-6 inhibitors. Hydroxychloroquine has the theoretical potential to affect the virus itself or the immune response. In addition to treating malaria, hydroxychloroquine is importantin the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. In those specific conditions, the drug effectively serves to subdue an overactive immune response.

Read Jim’s full story.

*

« THE CORONAVIRUS READER »

(Carolyn Kaster / AP)

In this photograph, Joel Albert, of Potomac, Maryland, plays his drums under a canopy of cherry blossoms at the end of March. Our senior editor Alan Taylor has put together this essay of images of warmer days and beautiful flowers returning to the Northern Hemisphere, for all of those who can’t be outside to see them.

*

« THE CORONAVIRUS READER »

(MIM.GIRL / SHUTTERSTOCK / THE ATLANTIC)

+ The pandemic seems to be hitting people of color the hardest, Ibram X. Kendi notes based on his reading of data from hot spots. And “in the end, though, no group of Americans may be more vulnerable to COVID-19 than the incarcerated and the homeless,” he writes. It’s time to pay more attention to these pandemic disparities.

+ What’s going on with Bill de Blasio? The New York mayor seems irritated by the need to fight the coronavirus, Alexander Nazaryan writes: “Aware that his progressive ambitions have been frustrated, de Blasio has complained that legions of enemies—conservatives, capitalists, newspaper headline writers—are arrayed against his vision for the city.”

+ The president belatedly acknowledged how dire a threat COVID-19 is, but many of his enablers in right-wing media refuse to take his cue, Peter Beinart writes: “Even when he reluctantly accepts a scientific consensus, some of the biggest conservative megaphones in America still won’t.”

+ Conor Friedersdorf has a few suggestions for fantasy sports programming that can safely entertain a television audience during the pandemic. Hall-of-Famers H-O-R-S-E? Tennis-Icon Ping-Pong?

You can keep up with The Atlantic’s most crucial coronavirus coverage here.


*

Today’s newsletter was written by Kaila Philo, a Politics fellow. It was edited by Shan Wang, who oversees newsletters.

You can reply directly to this newsletter with questions or comments, or send a note to politicsdaily@theatlantic.com.

Your support makes our journalism possible. Subscribe here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Shan Wang is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where she oversees newsletters.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Challenges, And The Politics, Of Suddenly Switching To Voting By Mail – NPR

Published

on


Many states are expanding mail-in voting as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. But the issue is fraught with politics and logistical obstacles.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

American Politics Is Broken. Liberalism Can't Fix It. – Jacobin magazine

Published

on


American Politics Is Broken. Liberalism Can’t Fix It.

Ezra Klein’s new book Why We’re Polarized identifies much of what’s wrong in the gridlocked US political system. But he dismisses the role of class in cohering the movements that can finally democratize it.

The White House in Washington, DC, May 2008.
AgnosticPreachersKid / Wikimedia

In his new book Why We’re Polarized, Vox founder Ezra Klein offers a model for understanding American political polarization and dysfunction through the lens of group identity. He argues that while polarization is normal (the United States is still actually less polarized than many other democracies), our political system is simply not equipped to deal with partisan polarization.

His account goes something like this: the failure of Reconstruction after the Civil War set the stage for a century of autocratic one-party Democratic rule in the South. Despite bearing the Democratic moniker, the “Dixiecrats” were really a party unto their own. Northern Democrats tolerated the Dixiecrats’ white supremacism in order to maintain a viable national ruling coalition, an arrangement that precluded neat bipolar sorting along party lines.

This uneasy alliance came to an end when northern Democrats broke ranks to join the Republican minority in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the same year the right-wing Barry Goldwater snagged the Republican presidential nomination, which “cleared the way for southern conservatives to join the Republican Party and northern liberals to join the Democratic Party.” With the Dixiecrats out of the picture, the political parties were free to naturally sort themselves around ideology — and, eventually, everything else too.

In the following decades, we saw the rise of what Klein terms political “mega-identities” that subsume everything from ideology to racial and gender identities to the movies we watch, the news we consume, and the restaurants we patronize. Virtually everything about us can now signal partisan identity.

While political polarization is not inherently bad, as it allows for clearer and more meaningful choices at the ballot box, the US political system — with all of its “checks and balances” and veto points — requires compromise to function. Polarization under divided government explains the never-ending gridlock, the government shutdowns, the “constitutional hardball,” and the inability of elected majorities to actually enact their agenda.

Furthermore, the undemocratic nature of American political representation has resulted in asymmetric political polarization. Republicans can win elections by catering to a minority of overrepresented mostly white, mostly Christian rural voters who feel their demographic dominance slipping, while Democrats, in Klein’s view, must moderate their platform to appeal to a broader coalition that includes right-of-center voters.

The result: an extremist Republican Party bearing hard into white identity politics and antidemocratic policies to consolidate their minority rule, a moderate Democratic Party forced to cobble together a broad coalition of less homogenous voters often united only in their opposition to Republicans, and a cumbersome political system always on the brink of crisis and failure.

This analysis is convincing. Klein, known for his wonky attention to detail, stays grounded in material reality. Where many liberal commentators blame individual actors, Klein is focused on the incentives that drive them. The problem isn’t Mitch McConnell — it’s the undemocratic nature of the Senate and a flawed constitution that generates irresolvable legitimacy crises under divided government. The problem isn’t Trump himself — it’s a political system that allows demagogues to take power without a popular mandate.

This systemic approach gets to the heart of the problem with American politics. Gridlock and crises of inaction aren’t the result of politicians that don’t know how to compromise but rather a political system that disincentivizes bipartisan cooperation while requiring it to function.

Rethinking, Not Rescuing, Identity Politics

Why We’re Polarized, according to Klein, is focused on understanding these problems, not solving them. Nonetheless, the final chapter cautiously offers some solutions. In addition to proposing much needed democratic and regulatory reforms, which Klein elsewhere dismisses as unlikely to actually happen, he also calls for us to “depolarize ourselves.”

Political identities, he warns, are reinforced by a “massive apparatus for defining, policing, and activating them.” By practicing “identity mindfulness,” individuals can recognize propaganda and slant and better manage their own emotional response to identity-based manipulation.

While such mindfulness might help individuals lead more examined political lives, it does little to address the problems Klein identifies. Individualist solutions are no answer to intractable societal problems.

Klein is speaking mostly to a receptive left-leaning audience. Republicans voting on white identity politics aren’t listening and they have no incentive to start now. They aren’t going to turn off right-wing media in a moment of quiet self-reflection, not en masse. They aren’t going to help dismantle the undemocratic institutions that politically advantage them. And they certainly aren’t going to abandon an identitarian movement in the middle of what feels, to them, like an existential battle against opponents rallying around their own brand of identity politics.

In the introduction to the book, Klein attempts to “rescue” identity politics from those who have weaponized the term against historically marginalized groups. White Republicans wield their (waning) demographic majority to present their concerns as “just good, old-fashioned politics” while dismissing the concerns of minorities as self-interested, niche identity politics. “With a quick sleight of hand,” Klein writes, “identity becomes something that only marginalized groups have.”

Klein isn’t wrong here. The dominance of identity politics across the political spectrum can make organizing around class and universalist policies seem hopeless or like a strategic error. It is neither. The Left has paid a great price for organizing mostly around minority identity politics, often to the exclusion of class politics entirely. The Democratic base comprises a hodgepodge of minority groups and white liberals. The glue holding that coalition together is often little more than dislike of Republicans. This is not enough to build a viable political movement.

A party in which both Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders can make a credible play for the nomination is inherently unstable.

Moreover, organizing the Left around a coalition of marginalized identities, as most liberals and even many leftists now do, cedes political debate to the preferred venue of the identitarian right. They want to argue over divisive cultural issues. The culture wars are also the preferred battlefield of right-wing ideologues who would rather political debate stay focused on identity issues than on enacting universal social programs, addressing inequality through wealth redistribution, or challenging the power and influence of capital.

We have gone so far down the left identitarian rabbit hole that, as Klein points out, in a “bizarre, worst-of-both-worlds compromise,” candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination began rebranding popular universalist policies in the language of identity politics. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren billed an earned income tax credit and universal childcare, respectively, as reparations for slavery. “These were universalist programs—programs that would help people of all races—being pitched in particularist ways,” Klein writes.

There’s no better way to hobble a popular agenda than to mislabel it as something divisive and unpopular. We’re doing the Right’s work for it here.

Worse, identity-based political organizing causes the Left to actually abandon its core mission of building a just, equitable society, shifting battles from broad struggles for the redistribution of wealth and resources to a fight for more seats at the table. The problem becomes not the unjust system itself but rather the lack of minority representation within it. In this way, the identity politics that Klein hopes to rescue, no matter how well intentioned such movements may be, end up reinforcing the neoliberal status quo.

Class Is More Than an Identity

Despite repeatedly emphasizing that our identities are pluralistic, Klein gives little attention to class in the book. This seems curious given that class cuts across racial divides and the geographic divisions that warp representation in the American political system. After all, Donald Trump would not be in the White House, nor would Republicans enjoy such an unassailable demographic advantage in the Senate, without having picked off so many white workers in the Midwest and elsewhere.

During a book tour Q&A session, Klein clarified that he doesn’t see class as a powerful identity in American politics. He notes that the Left line that “conservatives vote against their own interests” is a misunderstanding that arises from narrowly defining interests in terms of material resources. In Klein’s view, American politics is a fight over group identity and status, and policy debates are merely proxy wars in the struggle for group dominance. Voters are voting on identity, and the Left has mostly failed to create a class identity that speaks to the American public.

It’s true that the broader liberal left has largely abandoned class politics and that the rising democratic-socialist left must work harder to build class identity, but the implication that class is just another identity equal to others is inaccurate. Class consciousness may get activated like any other identity, but it functions very differently in practice. Whereas “identity politics” (as practiced by both the Left and the Right) divide the country into factions at war for group status, class consciousness cuts across racial, geographic, and cultural divides. Organizing around class puts most voters on the same side.

I’m under no illusion that white workers will unanimously join a class-oriented, multiracial, egalitarian movement — the pull of fascism and nativist nationalism is strong — but organizing around universalist policies at least provides material reasons to do so.

The Bernie Sanders campaign’s strength, once again, reveals the power in organizing around the commonality of class. Rather than trying to disguise universalist policies in the language of identity politics, Sanders consistently responds to the Democratic establishment’s pandering identity fetishization by underscoring how his policies — such as Medicare for All and a federal jobs guarantee — benefit everyone, marginalized groups most of all, in material ways that chanting vague platitudes like “X minority’s rights are human rights” does not.

It’s not enough to simply acknowledge injustice — we have to actually do something about it.

If the Democratic Party and the broader left want voters to vote on material interests, they need to make improving material conditions a priority and market it as such. Of course, much of the Democratic establishment has no interest in challenging the neoliberal order and is happy to spin its wheels arguing endlessly over whether our oppressors are diverse enough.

Those who are truly invested in improving material conditions will still find themselves pushing up against the gridlock inherent to our broken and undemocratic political system, but at least they’ll be able to credibly and honestly make the case that they are working to make things better, for everyone.

Democratization Is Not Optional

A popular platform will not spare the Left from contending with the constraints of the American political system described in Why We’re Polarized. Enacting policies, no matter how popular, requires political power. Unfortunately, malapportionment — which overwhelmingly benefits the Republican Party — prevents electoral majorities from translating into governing majorities that control political institutions. Furthermore, “checks and balances” prevent even governing majorities from enacting their campaign agenda.

Given that an excess of veto points favors neoliberal politics, this is particularly problematic for the Left when trying to create public programs and social policies. We won’t get to democratic socialism without democratic governance.

Under the current system, the American public is powerless to hold politicians accountable for policy failures and broken promises. Voters often don’t even know whom to blame. Divided government in the presidential system, a bicameral legislature, and judicial review create competing claims to democratic legitimacy that, as Klein points out, the American political system has no way to resolve. This is why Americans have such disdain for Washington. Legislators can’t legislate. The administration can’t govern. One party gets blamed for the other’s obstructionism and sabotage. Nothing changes no matter who wins elections, and voters are left demoralized. Ultimately, political disputes get decided by unelected federal judges, if they are addressed at all.

Klein is absolutely correct, as he argues in the book, that American democracy would work better if governing coalitions were elected by popular will and able to enact their campaign agenda. The public could then decide whether or not they did a good job and vote accordingly in the next election. This is the popular conception of democracy. It’s also not at all how the American political system works.

Why We’re Polarized offers a number of strategies for democratizing the political system, including fighting voter suppression, bypassing the Electoral College with an interstate popular vote pact, replacing gerrymandered single-member House districts with multimember districts decided by ranked-choice voting, scrapping the Senate filibuster, expanding congressional representation to Puerto Rico and DC to rebalance power in the Senate, and changing the composition of the Supreme Court.

None of these solutions need to clear the almost impossible hurdle of constitutional amendment. Some are procedural reforms. Others can be enacted with simple majorities in Congress once the filibuster is removed. Admittance of new states into the union isn’t even subject to presidential veto. Klein makes these suggestions precisely because he sees them as most achievable. More foundational constitutional reforms, like the abolition or democratization of the Senate, are deemed impossible.

He’s not alone. In his 2001 book, How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, the late constitutional scholar Robert Dahl voiced a similar pessimism. He found the most ambitious and meaningful democratic reforms the least achievable and put the odds of democratizing the Senate at “virtually zero.” More recently, political scientist David Faris put forward a plan to democratize the Constitution in It’s Time to Fight Dirty. Here, too, the reader is offered a familiar combination of policy reforms and messy constitutional workarounds that paper over the structural problems of broken institutions.

There is an understandable pragmatism at play here. The American constitution is hard to amend. Republicans will resist any democratic reforms that threaten their advantage. Constitutional workarounds seem like the obvious answer. Admitting new states into the union so that Senate malapportionment breaks more evenly over current partisan coalitions seems more achievable than abolishing the Senate. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seems easier than doing away with the Electoral College.

But is this really true? These reforms haven’t happened for a reason. Republicans’ outsized power in political institutions is self-reinforcing. Any constitutional workarounds have to survive the undemocratic political institutions they seek to reform, a problem Klein acknowledges. Bills have to make it through both chambers of Congress and avoid presidential veto to become law. Even then, they can be struck down by conservative-packed courts.

Crudely rebalancing malapportionment without directly addressing the way votes are counted and weighted could also backfire. Republicans can pack courts and “gerrymander” state lines too. In fact, they’re better positioned to do so.

Weaponizing flaws in the political system to score political points, suppress votes, and subvert democracy are already a primary way political battles are waged in this country. Major escalation in such tactics is only going to further delegitimize the constitutional system — but that might actually be the best argument for pursuing them. An undemocratic political system that works to suppress popular will should be deemed illegitimate and, ultimately, dismantled.

This is what Klein and other liberals know but are unwilling to say.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending