Archives for the month of: September, 2024
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

David Dayen: Trump Doesn’t Understand Basic Economics

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2024 //
13

David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, explains how little Trump understands economics or industrial policy. Strange that a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance would be economically illiterate. Maybe he was a DEI admit.

Dayen writes:

When Donald Trump is in the room, the truth takes a night off.

Only in this Republican Party can stories about Haitians eating pets leap from 4chan to the presidential debate stage in two days. As Rick Perlstein noted today, when you have religious conviction animating your movement, trivialities like verifying claims are sidelined. As long as something fits into the worldview, it doesn’t need to be true. For all the talk about the damage of young girls being addicted to their cellphones and steps needing to be taken to wean them off, nights like Tuesday remind us that the real damage of internet addiction is occurring among old right-wing men who believe everything put in front of them.

About Kamala Harris’s strategy: The expression du jour is that Harris “baited” Trump into looking insane in front of the public, but I don’t think there was a chance that she would throw out the bait and not reel anything in. This wasn’t a fair fight. This was like the late 19th century, when the servants of some industrialist would stock the lake with hungry fish. The Harris campaign ran an ad on Fox News making fun of Trump about crowd sizes, did everything but fly a giant banner over Trump’s car reading, “We’re going to make fun of you about crowd sizes,” then made fun of him about crowd sizes, and Trump still got angry. Yes, the debate team knew who they’re dealing with, because the subject in question has the emotional self-control of a toddler.

What’s more interesting to me is the cul-de-sac that Trump has stumbled into on tariffs, which now comprise his entire economic policy. It’s indicative of this wall that has been built, not to keep out migrants from Mexico, but to keep out reality.

In 2016, Trump had a rationale for imposing tariffs. He thought cheap Chinese goods entering the country unmolested was hurting the industrial base and causing factories to close. He imposed them to revitalize those left-behind areas, rebuild those factories, lower the trade deficit, and make America great again. And they were not placed across the board outside of China; the tariffs other countries felt were sector-specific.

Somewhere along the way, an aide must have idly read half a page to Trump from Karl Rove’s book about William McKinley, and now tariffs are to him what tax cuts are to every other Republican: a cure for every ailment. (It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.) Trump’s incoherent-sounding answer at the Economic Club of New York last week about child care was merely Trump seeing tariffs as bringing in enough cash to handle the problem. The way he thinks about this is the way a gangster used to think about protection money: Trump will get rich (oh, and sure, the country will too) by sticking up other countries.

There’s been a lot of dumb talk about tariffs lately, but they aren’t totally outlandish. That’s why, as Trump said in his only somewhat accurate comeback, Biden has kept a lot of the Chinese tariffs on. Lori Wallach and the Rethink Trade crew have a good primer on the purpose of tariffs. They are a trade enforcement tool for critical industries where countries have an economic and national-security imperative to compete. They are attempts to induce that competition fairly. And they are completely justified along those lines.

But that’s only if you combine them with other tools to allow for industrial expansion, like investing in manufacturing sectors or using export controls on certain technologies. The Biden administration has done this, and even added new, targeted tariffs on the same sectors where manufacturing is being encouraged. Because they are using tariffs in the manner in which they should be used, manufacturing construction in critical industries is soaring faster than any time in the last 30 years, private investment has been leveraged manyfold, clean-energy jobs in the U.S. are rising at twice the rate of other jobs, and the expected market share for U.S. semiconductors is now expected to grow after decades in the wilderness.

You’d have to know about this going in, but Harris actually alluded to it a bit when she talked about Trump “selling American chips to China to help them improve and modernize their military.” That was a reversal of Trump’s initial flirtation with export controls. She also highlighted the increase of 800,000 manufacturing jobs, which is frankly a low number, since practically all the factories boosted by the Inflation Reduction Act are still being completed and have yet to bring on production workers.

(I would add that the one area where the Biden administration eased up on including trade enforcement tariffs in its strategy, by delaying for two years solar component penalties, is an area where Chinese dominance is continuing. The suspension of a silicon cell factory in Colorado is the direct result of this failure to use the entire toolbox. The cross-pressure from the solar installation lobby, a trade group that includes the very Chinese companies dominating production, has been very damaging for administration strategy.)

Tariffs are imposed on wholesale prices, becoming part of the input cost. They are not a direct tax added to retail prices, and they are often absorbed into profit margins. But if you’re setting tariffs on everything, from every nation, including goods that have no substitute production in the U.S., then you are likely to get higher prices as a result, because there’s nothing stopping the retailer from passing on that input cost. You can use across-the-board tariffs as a trade enforcement tool to win policy concessions from other countries, but only if you’re willing to take them off if the concessions are won.

None of this is even reckoned with by Trump anymore. If it were, he’d have to admit that his tariffs failed to bring back industrial capacity. So instead, he’s gone deep into his mind and decided that tariffs are just a cheat code that allows you to cut other taxes and fund every need the government has. That means you can’t ever take them off, if they’re your main revenue source.

Thinking about tariffs as revenue is innumerate. Trump had to pay back out almost as much additional tariff revenue that he brought in to help struggling exporters, particularly in agriculture, caught up in his trade war. Tariffs cannot replace the income tax, and fund child care and other priorities, as a mathematical matter. But worse than that, the revenue on across-the-board tariffs, where no industry will rise to pick up the production and higher prices will result, will simply come from working families. Like any sales tax, it’s going to be regressive on those who spend a higher proportion of their income on basic necessities.

By contrast, the Biden strategy shows that industrial expansion and targeted tariffs can coexist with stable inflation, which as of today is down to 2.5 percent over the last year.

The Trump position on tariffs is indicative of the brain-poisoning of an entire party that has left policy construction behind in favor of Reddit rumors. In a fact-free zone, words are mashed together to the point of incoherence, and promises can be big and bold without a thought of whether they’re true and correct.

Do debates matter? They were enough to push one old politician out of the race a couple of months ago. Today, the Republican Party, which once called itself “the party of personal responsibility” is touting internet polls that their minions stormed, and blaming debate moderators for jumping in to say there’s no evidence of Haitians eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. Republicans have gone beyond any of the rational thoughts that would involve reassessing any of their choices over the last decade.

Whether debates matter for the purposes of collecting votes will not be revealed until November. What I know is that Donald Trump’s success depends entirely on whether he’s convinced enough Americans in swing states to be as ignorant as he is.

Categories Economics, Economy, Elections, Stupid, Trump

Ohio Is Funding the Construction and Renovation of Religious Schools

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2024 //
4

In an unprecedented move that shatters the historic wall of separation between church and state, Ohio has passed legislation to fund the construction and renovation of religious schools. It also directly violates the explicit language of the Ohio state constitution.

ProPublica reports on the latest move to defund public schools and divert money to religious schools.

The state of Ohio is giving taxpayer money to private, religious schools to help them build new buildings and expand their campuses, which is nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

While many states have recently enacted sweeping school voucher programs that give parents taxpayer money to spend on private school tuition for their kids, Ohio has cut out the middleman. Under a bill passed by its Legislature this summer, the state is now providing millions of dollars in grants directly to religious schools, most of them Catholic, to renovate buildings, build classrooms, improve playgrounds and more.

The goal in providing the grants, according to the measure’s chief architect, Matt Huffman, is to increase the capacity of private schools in part so that they can sooner absorb more voucher students.

“The capacity issue is the next big issue on the horizon” for voucher efforts, Huffman, the Ohio Senate president and a Republican, told the Columbus Dispatch.

Huffman did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

Following Hurricane Katrina and the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, some federal taxpayer dollars went toward repairing and improving private K-12 schools in multiple states. Churches that operate schools often receive government funding for the social services that they offer; some orthodox Jewish schools in New York have relied on significant financial support from the city, The New York Times has found.

But national experts on education funding emphasized that what Ohio is doing is categorically different.

“This is new, dangerous ground, funding new voucher schools,” said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center and the author of a new book on the history of billionaire-led voucher efforts. For decades, churches have relied on conservative philanthropy to be able to build their schools, Cowen said, or they’ve held fundraising drives or asked their diocese for help.

They’ve never, until now, been able to build schools expressly on the public dime.

“This breaks through the myth,” said David Pepper, a political writer and the former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. Pepper said that courts have long given voucher programs a pass, ruling that they don’t violate the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state because a publicly funded voucher technically passes through the conduit of a parent on the way to a religious school.

With this latest move, though, Ohio is funding the construction of a separate, religious system of education, Pepper said, adding that if no one takes notice, “This will happen in other states — they all learn from each other like laboratories.”

The Ohio Constitution says that the General Assembly “will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.”

Yet Troy McIntosh, executive director of the Ohio Christian Education Network — several of whose schools received the new grants — recently told the Lima News that part of the reason for spending these public dollars on the expansion of private schools is that “we want to make sure that from our perspective, Christian school options are available to any kid who chooses that in the state.”

Ohio started funding vouchers in Cleveland only. They were supposed to “help poor kids escape failing public schools.” Initially, vouchers were only for kids already enrolled in public schools and only for kids from low-income families.

When they were implemented in the 1990s, vouchers in Ohio, like in many places, were limited in scope; they were available only to parents whose children were attending (often underfunded) public schools in Cleveland. The idea was to give those families money that they could then spend on tuition at a hopefully better private school, thus empowering them with what was called school choice.

Over the decades, the state incrementally expanded voucher programs to a wider and wider range of applicants. And last year, legislators and Gov. Mike DeWine extended the most prominent of those programs, called EdChoice, to all Ohio families.

Now, vouchers subsidize the children of families who never attended public schools, including affluent families. They have become a welfare program for families who previously paid their full tuition. As in every other voucher state, most students who take vouchers were already enrolled in private and religious schools.

Encouraged by Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers political advocacy group, the Ohio legislature added the religious school funding bill to the state budget.

Led by Huffman, Republicans slipped at least $4 million in grants to private schools into a larger budget bill. There was little debate, in part because budget bills across the country have become too large to deliberate over every detail and, also, Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers in Ohio.

According to an Ohio Legislative Service Commission report, the grants, some of them over a million dollars, then went out to various Catholic schools around the state. ProPublica contacted administrators at each of these schools to ask what they will be using their new taxpayer money on, but they either didn’t answer or said that they didn’t immediately know. (One of the many differences between public and private schools is that the latter do not have to answer questions from the public about their budgets, even if they’re now publicly funded.)

The total grant amount of roughly $4 million this year may seem small, said William L. Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding. But, he noted, Ohio’s voucher program itself started out very small three decades ago, and today it’s a billion-dollar system.

“They get their foot in the door with a few million dollars in infrastructure funding,” Phillis said. “It sets a precedent, and eventually hundreds of millions will be going to private school construction.”

The total grant amount of roughly $4 million this year may seem small, said William L. Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding. But, he noted, Ohio’s voucher program itself started out very small three decades ago, and today it’s a billion-dollar system.

“They get their foot in the door with a few million dollars in infrastructure funding,” Phillis said. “It sets a precedent, and eventually hundreds of millions will be going to private school construction.”

The only statewide evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice voucher program was published in 2016. The evaluation was funded by the choice advocacy group, The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. TBF has a special relationship to Ohio Republicans in the legislature because it originated in Ohio and maintains an office in Ohio. It also authorizes charter schools in Ohio.

The evaluation concluded that students who left to use vouchers in a private school performed worse than their peers who remained in public schools.

So, the Republican supermajority has known for at least eight years that vouchers don’t “save” poor kids; in fact, those kids are likely to fall farther behind. Now that the Republicans have adopted universal choice, they know that they are helping kids who are already enrolled in private and religious schools. So now, it’s a logical step to throw in millions more for construction and renovation of voucher schools.

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Industry, Ohio, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Michael Hiltzik: Trump Was an Anti-Union, Anti-Worker President

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2024 //
85

Michael Hiltzik writes about business for The Los Angeles Times. In this column, he reviews Trump’s record on issues involving working people and unions. Although he is now positioning himself as a friend of workers, Hiltzik demonstrates that his record shows otherwise.

It is exceedingly odd that the Teamsters Union refused to endorse either candidate. One is a friend to organized labor; the other is hostile to unions. The difference between Trump and Harris is stark. What’s with the Teamsters? Be it noted that the Black Caucus of the Teamsters broke ranks and endorsed Harris, as did a Teamsters local in Chicago. West Coast teamsters also endorsed Harris. Other locals may follow those defections. But the crucial locals are in battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Hiltzik wrote:

Donald Trump, in his determined effort to claim the mantle of friend of the working man and woman, unveiled a proposal the other day to make overtime pay tax-exempt. 

“People who work overtime are among the hardest-working citizens of our country, and for too long, no one in Washington has been looking out for them,” he told a rally in Tucson. 

Let’s be blunt about something here: Anyone who buys Trump’s pose about this is the mark in a con game. Trump’s claim that no one in Washington has been looking out for overtime workers was never as true as it was during the Trump administration, which slashed overtime protections for more than 8.2 million workers. 

Trump’s Department of Labor was a black hole for worker rights. The agency abandoned an Obama administration policy that would have favored more than 4.2 million workers. The Biden administration restored the Obama rule and went further. 

And that was just on overtime. As president, observed economic commentator Pedro Nicolaci da Costa in 2019, Trump pursued “the most hostile anti-labor agenda of any modern president.”

Before exploring Trump’s manipulation of overtime regulations, let’s examine his overall record on workers’ rights.

In 2019, Trump appointed as his Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The new labor secretary had made his career as a corporate lawyer fighting pro-worker policies. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal had labeled him one of the financial industry’s “go-to guys for challenging financial regulations.”

Scalia had helped Walmart overturn a Maryland law mandating minimum contributions by big employers for workers’ healthcare, defended SeaWorld against workplace safety charges after a park trainer was killed by an orca (he lost that case), and had written extensively against a federal regulation expanding ergonomic safety requirements. 

He had written that the latter rule, proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “would require businesses to slow the pace of production, hire more workers, increase rest periods and redesign workstations or even entire operations.”

No legitimate candidate for secretary of Labor would have regarded that policy as a bad thing, but Scalia condemned it in print as “the most costly and intrusive regulation in [OSHA’s] history.”

Scalia’s predecessor as secretary, Alexander Acosta, had gone to Congress to oppose measures to raise the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009 to $15 in steps. It shouldn’t need mentioning that this was an extraordinary position for a secretary of Labor to take. 

(Acosta, it may be remembered, lost his job after revelations about his role in soft-pedaling sex-trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein produced a political uproar.)

Trump remade the National Labor Relations Board along the same lines. In a key move, his NLRB scrapped the effort under Obama to expand the definition of “joint employer,” which would have made big franchisers such as McDonald’s jointly liable with their franchisees for violations of employees’ wage and hour rights. 

The Trump NLRB’s proposed definition would narrow the joint-employer standard “to the point at which many workers would find it nearly impossible to bring all firms with the power to influence their wages and working conditions to the bargaining table,” according to the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute.

Put it all together, and Trump had turned the Department of Labor into the “Dept. of Employer Rights,” I wrote.

Now to the overtime rules. As my colleague James Rainey reported Sunday, Trump’s proposal to make overtime pay tax-exempt was part of a passel of purported tax cuts for the working class, including tax exemptions for tips and Social Security benefits, all of which economists saw as “gimmicks” and “shams.”

In 2016, Obama had raised the ceiling making salaried workers eligible for time-and-a-half overtime — that is, working hours exceeding 40 hours per week — to $47,476 in annual wages, up from $23,660. The ceiling would be adjusted regularly to overall wage growth. Hourly workers typically get overtime after 40 hours, but salaried workers receive overtime pay if their wages are below the ceiling. 

The Obama administration’s idea was to narrow the practice of low-wage employers to designate workers as “managers” to exempt them from the OT rule while paying them an hourly wage. (That’s why fast-food restaurants are always suspiciously loaded with “general managers, assistant managers, night managers, managers for opening and closing and delivery,” as former New York prosecutor Terri Gerstein observed in 2019.)

It was estimated that the new rule would give 4.2 million workers new overtime protection.

The Obama rule was blocked by a federal judge in Texas. When Trump came into office, his Labor Department refused to defend the rule in court. Instead, the agency proposed a new rule reducing the wage ceiling to only $35,568. That was nearly $20,000 below the level that would have been reached by the Obama rule, as it was adjusted for wage inflation. The Trump rule was not indexed.

Some 8.2 million workers who would have gained OT protection under Obama were left behind by the Trump rule, Heidi Shierholz of the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute calculated. They would be deprived of a combined $1.4 billion in pay annually.

The 8.2 million workers left behind, Shierholz estimated, included “4.2 million women, 3.0 million people of color, 4.7 million workers without a college degree, and 2.7 million parents of children under the age of 18.”

The Biden administration restored the Obama rule, and then some. The new rule set the ceiling at $844 per week, or $43,888 for a full-time hourly worker, as of July 1. 

On Jan. 1, the salary ceiling will rise to $1,128 per week, or $58,656 annually. After that, it will be indexed every three years. The new rule will benefit an estimated 4.3 million workers, more than half of whom are women and about one-fifth workers of color. 

Among the largest groups of affected workers, EPI estimates, are those in healthcare and social services.

Whether Trump has sat down to map out a pro-worker policy is doubtful in the extreme — it’s not a concern he has ever displayed in the past. He appears to have blurted out the overtime policy as part of what the Irish writer Fintan O’Toole aptly describes as “the surreal bricolageof his rally speeches.”

But a clue can be found in “Project 2025,” a road map for a second Trump term drafted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. (Trump claims to have nothing to do with this 900-page tome, but no one really believes him.)

Project 2025 would shrink overtime coverage materially. It advocates cutting the compensation subject to time-and-a-half to salary only, excluding pay for such benefits as healthcare, retirement, education, child care or paid meals. Under existing law, the only compensation that can be excluded from the calculation is pay for expenses a worker pays on the employer’s behalf, discretionary bonuses, gifts on special occasions, and vacation and sick pay.

The Project also advocates indexing the ceiling once ever five years rather than three years, which would slow its rate of growth, and index the ceiling to consumer inflation, which tends to grow slower than wage inflation, the current index. 

The Project also advocates allowing employers to calculate overtime hours over two or four weeks rather than weekly, which would allow them to require workers to put in more than 40 hours some weeks and make it up in others. That sounds like an open invitation to employer manipulation of work schedules.

Trump’s record on worker rights is clear as day. Do you really think he’ll be looking out for the men and women in the rank and file? 

Categories Elections, Extremism, Fake News, Trump, Unions

Robert Reich: The GOP Voted Against Protecting IVF

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2024 //
2

You may recall that Trump said during his debate with VP Harris that he would be a champion for IVF. He said he would not only protect I F but require insurance companies to cover the cost.

He forgot to tell his Senate allies.

They voted down a bill to protect IVF.

The vote on Tuesday was 51 in favor and 44 opposed, with Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine joining with Democrats in support. Sen. JD Vance didn’t vote.  Without 60 votes to break a filibuster, the bill was dead.

IVF is In Vitro Fertilization, which enables many families to have children. It’s miraculous and there’s no reason to ban it.

Robert Reich tweeted a list of some of the GOP senators who voted NO:

All nine Republican senators running for reelection just voted against the Right to IVF Act:

John Barrasso
Marsha Blackburn
Kevin Cramer
Ted Cruz
Deb Fischer
Josh Hawley
Pete Ricketts
Rick Scott
Roger Wicker

(JD Vance missed today’s vote)

So much for the party of “freedom.”

Categories Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Parents, Republicans

Trump Spoke in Nassau County, New York, Tonight. More Lies

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2024 //
13

New York is considered a Democratic state but Trump came to speak at a rally at the Nassau Colisum in suburban Nassau County. Whether he helped his campaign remains to be seen, but he hopes to bolster Republicans trying to retain their seats in the House. Although Trump accused Harris and Walz for campaign rhetoric that unleashed violence against him, his statements about them were far more inflammatory than anything they said about him.

The local newspaper, The Patch, reported:

UNIONDALE, NY — A confident Donald Trump took to the stage at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Wednesday before a sea of red — supporters that met him with cheers, including chants of “USA, USA.”

It was his first presidential campaign rally since an assassination attempt was foiled by the Secret Service at a golf course in West Palm Beach in Florida on Sunday.

Trump had been playing a round of golf at Trump International Golf Club, when a man poked a rifle through the bushes. He was not injured in the attempt.

“We have got to get our media back here,” he told cheering supporters before attacking his team’s Democratic opponents, Vice President Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, saying that the lies have to stop and that they would turn America into a dictatorship. 

“They’re doing things in politics that have never been done before in the history of our country, and worst of all, with their open borders and bad elections, they have made us into a Third World nation, something which nobody thought was even possible,” he said. “Americans deserve a campaign based on the issues.”

Trump quickly moved into addressing the apparent attempt on his life over the weekend, saying that “God has spared his life,” not once but twice.

The first attempt on Trump’s life was over the summer.

“And there are those that say he did it because Trump is going to turn this state around,” he said of his alleged assailant. “He’s going to turn this country around. He’s going to make America great again, and we are going to bring religion back to our country.”

Less than a few minutes into his speech, he claimed the Teamsters gave him their endorsement. 

Hours before, the union’s leadership said it would not issue any endorsements, according to a statement on it’s website. In a statement, the union said it was due to strong political divides and few comments from candidates.

“These encounters with death have not broken my will,” he said. “They have really given me a much bigger and stronger mission. They’ve only hardened by resolve to use my time on earth to make America great again for all Americans to put America first and to put America first.”

Questions for readers:

Is it not an inflammatory lie to say that Harris and Walz would turn the U.S. into a “dictatorship”? What does he mean? It is he, not they, who has pledged to fire civil servants by the thousands and replace them with political loyalists. It is he, not they, who promised to prosecute anyone who opposed him and jail them. That is the definition of a dictatorship.

What are Harris and Walz doing “that have never been done before in the history of our country”?

When did Harris or Walz say they favored “open borders” other than never?

What does it mean to say they support “bad elections”? Like elections where every registered voter gets to cast a ballot? It is Republican officials who want to kick people off the voting rolls; that would be a “bad election.”

How can Trump “bring back religion” when he has none?

Trump spewed a Gish gallop, where the lies came out like a fire hose.

Categories Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Lies, New York, Trump, Walz, Tim

Jay Kuo: Trump Has “Jumped the Shark” in His Desperation

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2024 //
20

Jay Kuo writes a delightful and informative blog called “The Status Kuo.” In his latest, he explains the origin of the phrase “jumping the shark,” which was new to me. He went on to show that Trump had grown so desperate as his polls declined that he had “jumped the shark.”

He writes:

Photo courtesy of ABC

Toward the end of the fifth year of the popular TV series Happy Days, the writers had The Fonz put on water skis and jump over a live shark. Everyone watching at the time had the same question: What the hell are they doing?

Jumping the shark became a cautionary metaphor for when a show goes awry and is desperate for new ideas and ratings. And since Trump is fundamentally a television personality, and we are all living through his twisted reality show, it is notable that, in desperation over his flagging candidacy and polls showing him trailing Vice President Kamala Harris, the writer, producer and chief protagonist of Unhappy Dayshas now jumped the shark, too.

In today’s piece, I’ll discuss three recent examples that demonstrate this phenomenon and signal that the draw of Trump’s show may be near its end. These examples are about as different as they can be, but they all point to the same conclusion: Trump’s sway over the American public is fading.

A chestnut of a blood libel conspiracy that could fall flat

During the recent presidential debate, the ex-president amplified a gutter internet rumor about Haitian immigrants eating the dogs and cats of Springfield, Ohio. Even after being fact-checked live during the debate and later by reporters, Trump and Vance continued to double down on this sick and false claim. 

Trump refused to condemn bomb threats called in on Springfield buildings during the aftermath of his statements, making clear that he was perfectly okay with the chaos that he himself had created.

And on Sunday Vance gave a disaster class of an interview when he admitted to “creating stories” in an effort to draw the media’s attention to the problem of immigration while CNN’s Dana Bash brutally fact-checked him.

The confession was telling. Per Vance, the whole point of the made-up stories was to frighten enough voters (and therefore the media) into focusing on the immigrant question, even if that means demonizing an entire community of innocent residents, who by the way are there entirely legally. The Trump campaign will do whatever it takes to get the country talking about immigrants instead of Trump’s many crimes, his record on abortion, his poor debate performance, his declining mental acuity, and poll after bad poll.

Further, it is clear they intend to leverage the MAGA mob and a statistically predictable number of crazies to do their dirty work. But this kind of stochastic terror is hardly new ground for Trump. 

He did it when he came down the escalator and called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists—rhetoric that fueled hate and led to the El Paso Wal-Mart massacre. 

He did it again when he targeted the AAPI community during Covid by labeling it the “China Virus,” causing a sixfold increase in anti-AAPI hate crimes in America, followed by a deadly shooting spree in Atlanta at a Korean-owned spa.

Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric was always destined for the final, lowest kind of take: blood libel.

We have to rewind over a thousand years to understand this canard. The blood libel conspiracy during medieval times falsely alleged that Jews were reenacting the crucifixion of Christ and required human blood for the making of matzo bread. Baseless but dangerous claims against Jews in England ultimately alleged they had actually killed a child as part of ritual sacrifice. This rumor spread and was amplified by politicians of the times, leading to widespread violence, mass executions and pogroms.

Trump and Vance’s false claims have led to a modern day version of this, where scary “others” are devouring the beloved family members, in this case pets, of the local residents. And it has had its intended effect. Schools and hospitals in Springfield are now closed due to threats of mass shootings and bombings. Immigrants are afraid to go outside and are keeping their children at home. Vehicles of Haitian immigrants have been vandalized and hit with acid. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP continue their call for “mass deportations,” even of legal immigrants, in what is essentially a call for ethnic cleansing.

Trump is now planning an appearance in Springfield to drive home his false narrative, but this could backfire. To put it in television terms, the attention Trump hopes to draw has been overshadowed by the reckless stunt he pulled in an attempt to juice his ratings.

Trump has jumped the shark.

It is worth noting that Trump’s initial statement was initially met with derisive laughter and disbelief, not just from the left but from most of the center of the country. As Aaron Blake of the Washington Post noted, a poll of voters showed that independents disbelieved the claim by a factor of two to one, and five times as many independents are sure that it’s false as those who believe it’s true.

And according to a recent Data for Progress poll, huge majorities of voters of all persuasions believe that Trump’s statements about immigrants eating pets is a weird thing to say.

Trump’s ploy might well result in the worst of all outcomes for him and his campaign: the American public collectively shaking their heads at him with contempt over his racist targeting of a whole community and entirely unmoved by his upping the ante.

Collective yawn

As evidence that Trump has overplayed his hand in what we hope is his final season, it appears there was a second attempted assassination, this time by someone who was caught by authoritieswith an AK-47 a few hundred yards down the golf course where Trump was playing on Sunday. The only shots fired were by the Secret Service.

(To those on the right questioning how the would-be assailant could have possibly known where to find Trump, it was at his golf course. That’s where he always is.)

Note that the second would-be assassin is, like the first, also a white male. He is not an immigrant, a Haitian or a drag queen. He’s a gun enthusiast who voted for Trump in 2016 but soured on him by 2020, and whose social media indicates he is a vaccine conspiracy theorist while supporting a Haley/Ramaswamy GOP ticket. Not exactly a stable individual.

The first time Trump was shot at, there was a collective gasp from the public and an outpouring of condemnation of political violence. This time feels different. Once again, the perpetrator, however unstable is a statistically predictable outgrowth of the very toxic political environment that Trump himself created. Like his second indictment, this second attempt feels like more of the same, with Trump himself to blame for much of it. 

It didn’t help that Trump squandered whatever political capital he might have had from the first attempt by brandishing his absurd ear bandage, later taken up as a symbol of fealty by the MAGA faithful because they’re not at all in a cult.

A second attempt on Trump’s life is therefore hardly shocking to anyone who understands the kinds of chaotic forces Trump himself has unleashed. It seems only Donald Trump could manage to make us all numb to the idea of two attempts on a candidate’s life in this election season. If we were in the writers’ room, the notion quickly would be shot down as an overreach. 

In my best Miranda Priestly voice, “Another Trump assassin? Groundbreaking.”

Swift vengeance

One final indication that Trump has overreached and overplayed his hand: that Taylor Swift thing.

Right after that disastrous debate for Trump ended, the coup de grâce came from pop megastar Taylor Swift, who posted on her Instagram to her 284 million fans that she had watched the debate, done her research and would be voting for Harris/Walz. She encouraged folks to register to vote and do their own research into the election.

That endorsement led to some 400,000 visits to vote.gov and what appears to be a big surge in voter registration nationally. As Tom Bonier of TargetSmart observed, there was a “400% or 500% increase” in voter registration, meaning somewhere between 9,000-10,000 people per hour. “It’s really unlike anything I’ve seen,” Bonier said. 

In a race where key battleground states may be won by a few thousand votes, this spike in voter registration among Swifties was terrible news for Trump. That’s apparently why he then went and did the worst possible thing in response. Over the weekend, an enraged Trump tweeted in all caps, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” 

If you know anything about Swift’s fan base, this declaration of war was a terrible idea. It will only force more Swift fans to direct action and even greater involvement in the election, because nothing gets them riled up like their idol being attacked.

Perhaps in the back of his mind Trump intended to sow terror again by turning his MAGA faithful against Swift. After all, her concerts in Vienna were canceled due to actual planned terrorist attacks—something her fans are still in keen pain over. But if Trump believes creating online hate and stirring up further threats against Swift will cause her or her fans to back down, he has badly miscalculated.

Once again, in his desperation, he has gone a step too far. 

Categories Bigotry, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Hoax, Trump

NCPE: Voucher Costs Are Rising Dramatically Above Budget Projections

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2024 //
5

The National Coalition for Public Education published valuable information contrasting the actual cost of vouchers to overly optimistic projections by their advocates. In every state that has adopted vouchers, most vouchers are used by students already enrolled in private schools. In states such as Florida and Arizona, vouchers are “universal,” meaning there are no income limitations or other restrictions on their accessibility. In essence, vouchers provide public dollars to subsidize the tuition of students in private and religious schools. They are a welfare program for the affluent.

The NCPE concluded:

When lawmakers consider expanding or creating private school voucher programs, their projections often drastically underestimate the actual costs. They sell a false promise that vouchers will save money, do not budget adequate funds, and then wind up with million dollar shortfalls, necessitating cuts from public education and even tax increases. 

Some voucher advocates incorrectly claim that if the amount of the voucher is less than the average expenditure spent to educate a student in public school, the state will save money. Existing voucher programs prove this false.  

First, it costs less than the average expenditure to educate some students, and much more to educate others who need additional support and services–like those with disabilities, English language learners, and low-income students. The students who are most expensive to educate, however, tend to remain in public schools  because they cannot find a private voucher school willing to accept them. Yet, because of the voucher program, the public schools are left with fewer resources. Furthermore, in a voucher program, the state now pays tuition for private school students who never attended public schools, which is an altogether new cost for taxpayers.

This all adds up to more, not less, spending.

Here are several examples of the skyrocketing costs of voucher programs:

ARIZONA’S VOUCHER IS COSTING 1,346% MORE THAN PROJECTED, CONTRIBUTING TO A $400 MILLION BUDGET DEFICIT.

  • The fiscal note attached to Arizona’s universal voucher program projected the program would cost the state about $65 million in 2024 and $125 million in 2025. But once students’ applications started to come in, state leaders realized these estimates were woefully inadequate. The Arizona Governor’s Office now estimates that the price tag is more than 1,346% higher at a cost of $940 million per year. This is one of the main causes of a $400 million budget shortfall in the state’s general fund, which funds the state’s public schools, transportation, fire, police, and prisons.

THE FLORIDA VOUCHER IS ALREADY MORE THAN $2 BILLION OVER BUDGET IN YEAR ONE.

  • The Florida Senate projected that its voucher expansion would cost $646 million. But independent researchers estimated that the program would actually cost almost $4 billion, and actual costs are already approaching that amount—$3.35 billion in the first year. In just one county, Duval, school officials report a $17 million budget shortage due to funds lost to the vouchers.

WEST VIRGINIA’S VOUCHER DRAINS MORE THAN $20 MILLION FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS PER YEAR.

  • During the 2024 – 2025 school year, the West Virginia voucher program is expected to funnel $21.6 million away from the state’s public schools–enough to pay the salaries for 301 professional teachers and 63 school service workers. As a result of the voucher and other declines in enrollment, multiple school districts are already warning residents that they need to impose property tax increases in order to continue to pay current teachers’ salaries.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Budget Cuts, Disruption, Education Industry, Florida, Funding, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Michael Hiltzik: Trump and Vance Are Wrong About Tariffs: They Raise Consumer Prices and Inflation!

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2024 //
24

Michael Hiltzik is the Pulititzer Prize-winning business columnist for The Los Angeles Times. In this column, he explained that Trump and Vance are wrong to claim that tariffs will produce vast new revenues for the U.S. Treasury. Hiltzik shows that Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

He writes:

Despite strong evidence that the average voter in the presidential election doesn’t care a hoot about international trade policy, Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance have been promising to step up Trump’s tariff war with China.

As usual, they’re backing their promise with lies and other humbug.

“A tariff is a tax on a foreign country,” Trump asserted at an Aug. 19 rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for example. “That’s the way it is, whether you like it or not. A lot of people like to say it’s a tax on us. No, no, no. It’s a tax on a foreign country.”

Questioned during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Aug. 25 about the effect of Trump’s tariffs on ordinary households — and economists’ conclusion that consumers pay the price — Vance asserted that “economists really disagree about the effects of tariffs.”

They’re wrong on both counts.

In truth, there’s no detectable disagreement among economists. In two polls conducted by the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, panels of economists unanimously agreed that American households would pay the price for Trump’s tariffs.

Those opinions held in a March 2018 poll and a May 2019 poll of panels of 43 leading academic economists. (The panels weren’t identical but did overlap; three respondents in the first poll didn’t provide answers and 11 didn’t answer or were “uncertain” in the second.)


The Harris campaign is more forthright about the cost of tariffs to the average consumer, although its specific estimates about the magnitude of the cost of tariffs Trump has proposed for the future — almost $4,000 a year on middle class households — can be questioned.

It’s proper to note, moreover, that although Harris has called the Trump tariffs a “Trump sales tax,” she doesn’t mention that the Biden administration has kept many of Trump’s tariffs in place and has moved to increase some of them.
It’s safe to say that the entire topic of tariffs is fraught with confusion and uncertainty. Here’s what you need to know.


First, the background. Trump launched a trade war, principally with China, in 2018 with a tariff of up to 25% on $50 billion worth of Chinese products. He stepped up the war later in the year with 10% tariffs on $200 billion in goods, and added tariffs of 10% on an additional $112 billion of Chinese imports. Trump also imposed tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from numerous trade partners.


These levies amounted to a tax of some $80 billion a year on American consumers, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently calculated. That was tantamount to “one of the largest tax increases in decades,” the foundation said, blaming the tariffs for the loss of the equivalent of 142,000 jobs. The average household paid a price of nearly $300 a year.


Biden kept in place many of the levies on Chinese products and added some of his own, including a 100% tariff on Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles. He replaced the aluminum and steel tariffs on imports from Britain, the European Union and Japan with a tariff quota, meaning that imports up to a certain level are exempt but tariffs remain in place for higher import volumes.

Tariffs are designed to fall on finished exported goods, but those goods often aren’t what consumers buy directly. Aluminum and steel, obviously, are raw materials used by manufacturers in the importing country. Other products subjected to the Trump tariffs are parts that go into American-made cars or other finished products.


The household-level effect of tariffs also depends on what a consumer buys. Consider the effect of tariffs on washing machines imposed by Trump (and allowed to expire by Biden) and the 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles Biden announced in May.


The EV tariffs will have no effect on American buyers, in the view of economist and economic blogger Noah Smith. That’s because Chinese EVs aren’t a factor in the U.S. market: “If you’re an American, you weren’t buying a Chinese EV yesterday, and now you’re not going to buy one tomorrow either. Nothing will change for you,” Smith observes.

You might, however, be able to buy one at some point in the future. Chinese EV makers including BYD are planning to build factories in Mexico, which would allow them to circumvent the Biden tariff even if the Mexican-made vehicles are bristling with Chinese parts. Some companies may even open factories in the U.S., as BMW, Honda, Toyota and other foreign carmakers have done.

The Trump tariff on washing machines had a measurable effect on the American market, however. Chinese-made machines commanded 80% of the U.S. market in 2018. That January, Trump imposed a 20% tariff on the first 1.2 million imported washing machines per year, and 50% on the excess imports.

Economists at the Federal Reserve and University of Chicago calculated that as a result, the price of washing machines rose by about 11%, or an average of $86.

As it happens, the price of clothes dryers, which weren’t subject to a tariff, also rose, by $92. The reason evidently is that washers and dryers are generally bought as a pair; washer makers taking advantage of the reduction in foreign competition to raise prices on that appliance simply jacked up prices on the package.

Overall, manufacturers passed through more than 100% of the tariff cost to consumers, thanks to the lack of competition and the price increase on dryers. American consumers lost about $1.55 billion because of the washing machine tariffs, the authors found.

The researchers did acknowledge that manufacturing employment in the washing machine sector increased by about 1,200 in the wake of the tariff. But that worked out to a cost of about $815,000 per new job — borne, again, by consumers.

That underscores the fakery purveyed by Trump and Vance about the purported virtues of tariffs. During his “Meet the Press” appearance, Vance claimed that tariff critics overlooked the “dynamic effect when more jobs come into the country. Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages.”

But there’s scant evidence for Vance’s claim that the tariffs pay for themselves. Certainly the economists polled by the University of Chicago didn’t think so, and the Tax Foundation found that, on balance, the Trump tariffs cost jobs.
The same conclusion was reached by economists at UCLA, UC Berkeley, Yale and Columbia, who found “large consumer losses from the trade war” Trump instigated. They added together the cost of the U.S. tariffs and those of retaliatory tariffs imposed by target countries, especially China.

That leaves the question of the role tariffs should play in overall industrial policy. They’re a tool that can be useful or warranted in specific contexts, but only if they’re carefully calibrated with other measures. Biden accompanied his continuation of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese semiconductor products, for instance, with the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, which provides for about $280 billion in government funding for semiconductor research and development, including $40 billion in subsidies for chip factories in the U.S.

Viewed in isolation, tariffs are disdained by liberal and conservative economists alike. David Dollar and Zhi Wang of the liberal Brookings Institution warned in 2018 that of the costs of Trump’s trade war, “some … will be borne by American consumers; [and] some by American firms that either produce in China or use intermediate products from China.”

Their conclusions were confirmed by the libertarian Cato Institute, which asserted last month that “Americans bore the brunt” of Trump’s tariffs. Among the drawbacks were “higher tax burdens and prices, loss in wages and employment, reduced consumption, decreased investment, a decline in exports, and overall aggregate welfare.”

History offers its own warnings. During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Trump praised the tariffs proposed by William McKinley (R-Ohio) as a member of Congress in 1888. “If you look at McKinley,” Trump told his interviewer, Mark Levin, “he was a great president. He made the country rich.”

During the years following the enactment of the “McKinley Tariff” in 1890, the U.S. suffered four recessions or “panics,” in 1890-91, 1893, 1896 and 1899-1900.

McKinley became president in 1897. By then the McKinley Tariff had been shown to be a political disaster, leading to landslide losses of 83 House seats in the midterm election of 1890 and the loss of the White House in 1892, placing both chambers of Congress and the presidency in Democratic hands.


In other words, if Trump knew history, he would abandon all this tariff talk. But he doesn’t, and he hasn’t.

Categories Economics, Economy, Elections, Stupid, Trump, Vance, J.D.

Webinar: Public Funding for Religious Schools?

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2024 //
14

The National Education Policy Center is hosting a webinar on the implications of federal funding of religious schools. Actually, two webinars, on September 26. Sign up here.

NEPC writes:

Should religious schools be publicly funded? And what are the implications when they are?

These questions have become increasingly relevant in the United States in the wake of Espinoza v. Montana (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022), two U.S. Supreme Court cases that forced states, under certain circumstances, to provide public funding to private religious schools. But questions raised by such public funding are not unique to our nation. In fact, many of the issues currently confronting the United States have already been wrestled with in other countries around the world.

On September 26th, two back-to-back webinars will explore these trends and issues, with an eye to helping parents, teachers, administrators, scholars, advocates, journalists, and other education stakeholders better understand the history and impact of state-funded religious education in the U.S. and abroad.

The webinars, which are free to register for and attend, feature the authors of articles in a new special issue of the Peabody Journal of Education, a peer-refereed publication. This special issue on publicly funded religious schools considers research findings around equity, segregation, and discrimination as they relate to state-funded religious education. Studies presented in the special issue were conducted in Canada, Spain, and the U.S., and they examine how state-funded religious education has shifted over time as a result of factors such as legal rulings, politics, demographic changes, global migration, and education privatization.

The webinars are sponsored by NEPC, which invites the public to attend either or both.

Law and Public Discourse is the title of the first webinar in the series, which runs from noon to 1 pm Eastern Time.

Kathleen Sellers of Duke University will moderate. Panelists are Sue Winton of York University in Canada and NEPC Fellows Bruce Baker of the University of Miami, Suzanne Eckes of the University of Wisconsin, Preston Green of the University of Connecticut, and Kevin Welner of the University of Colorado.

The second webinar, Catholic Culture and Market Concerns, will be held right after the first one, from 1 to 2 pm Eastern on September 26th.

Joel Malin of Miami University will moderate. Panelists will be James Coviello, Stephen Kotok, and Catherine DiMartino, all of St. John’s University, Clara Fontdevila of the University of Glasgow in Scotland, Adrián Zancajo and Antoni Verger of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and Ee-Seul Yoon of the University of Manitoba, Canada.

Click here now to register for one or both of these two webinars.

For those interested in reading the underlying articles in the Peabody journal, they’re available (although some are behind a paywall) as follows:

Fontdevila, C., Zancajo, A., & Verger, A. (2024). Catholic Schools in the Marketplace: Changing and Enduring Religious Identities

Green, P., Baker, B., & Eckes, S. (2024). The Potential for Race Discrimination in Voucher Programs in a Post-Carson World

Kotok, S., DiMartino, C.C., & Coviello, J. (2024). New York City Catholic Schools Operating in the Public Space in a Post-Makin World

Welner, K. (2024). Charting the Path to the Outsourcing of Discrimination Through School Choice

Winton, S. (2024). Same Arguments, Different Outcomes: Struggles Over Private School Funding in Alberta and Ontario, Canada

Yoon, E.S. (2024). Unequal City and Inequitable Choice: The Neoliberal State’s Development of School Choice and Marketization in the Publicly Funded Catholic School Board in Toronto, Canada

Yoon, E.S., Malin, J.R., Sellers, K.M., & Welner, K.G. (2024). Should Religious Schools Be Publicly Funded? Issues of Religion, Discrimination, and Equity

Categories Catholic Schools, Funding, Religion, Separation of church and state

Timothy Snyder Launches His New Book in Ukraine, Underground

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2024 //
31

Timothy Snyder is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University. He specializes in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust.

He wrote this as he was flying from Europe to the U.S. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Snyder has been an outspoken champion of that beleaguered nation. He has used his deep knowledge of history to debunk Putin’s justifications for invading his neighbor. He has even raised money to buy defense weapons for Ukraine when the Republican Congress dithered for months before passing an aid package.

Snyder writes:

Words make their way through the world with us, changing their senses as we change our lives.  Think for example of the word “launch.”

Today and in days to come I will “launch” my book On Freedom, in the sense of the word all of my publishing friends like to use.  They want to book to “launch,” to soar, to do well.  In this spirit I talked to Tom Sutcliffe of the BBC in London this morning, and I am hoping to speak to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC tonight.  And no doubt throughout this long day, which begins in Europe and ends in the United States, I will say “launch” several times myself.

I am returning from Ukraine. My first true conversation about On Freedom this month was a week ago in Kharkiv, a major city in northeastern Ukraine, close to the Russian border and to the front.  The Literary Museum there had invited me for a presentation at an underground site.  It was a lovely place, with a bar that made me the coffee that I needed after a long trip, and a crowd of people invited to talk about freedom (we could not announce the event for safety reasons, which I regret). In a sense, this Kharkiv discussion was the real launch of the book.

We were underground, though, because of another kind of launch, the unmetaphorical kind, not the literary launch but the literal launch — of Russian missiles.

Kharkiv, Budynok “Slovo”.

The Russians seemed close to taking Kharkiv at the beginning of the war.  There was intense combat in Saltivka, a district of the city home to about 600,000 people.  Major buildings in the city center of Kharkiv are still in ruins. The Ukrainians held the Russians back, but Russia itself remains close.  A missile fired from Russia can reach Kharkiv before people have a chance to get underground.  That, in Kharkiv, is what a “launch” too often means.

The difference in the sense of a word can help us to catch the difference in reality.  In Kharkiv, the drones and the bombs and the missiles are a normal part of the day.  People want to talk about books, they want to go to restaurants and movies, they want to live their lives, and they do, despite it all.

Those of us beyond war zones catch all of this, if at all, indirectly, through media.  We do not hear the sirens and we do not have to go underground.  We do not have to check social media to see if friends and family are alive. The word “launch” retains a kind of innocence.

This is not about countries being different, but about situations being difference.  Kharkiv in normal times is a major literary city. In the 2020s, before the Russian full-scale invasion, Kharkiv was a center of Ukrainian book production.  Before February 2022 there were plenty of launches, in the literary sense, in Kharkiv. And there are still some now!

Genocide is not only about killing people, but about eliminating a culture, making it untenable by destroying the institutions that transmit it.  Thus Russia burns books, steals museum artifacts, and bombs archives, libraries, and publishing houses.  Russia deliberately destroyed the publishing houses in Kharkiv, including where one of my own books was being printed.  One sort of launch would seem to obliterate the other.  But, to the Ukrainians’ credit, only for a time.  The book publishing industry, like a number of others, picked up in other places. The public book culture in Ukraine, expressed in new stores and cafes, is defiant.

I was thinking of “launches” in Kyiv, a couple of days after the Kharkiv visit, as I pretaped an interview about the book.  For me it was the end of a long day, spent beginning (“launching”) a big history project.  The first conference had gone well, and we had a press conference complete with a Viking sword, a Byzantine cross, and Scythian and Trypillian vessels kindly loaned by the national museum.  Ukrainian colleagues on the stage had spoken of the importance of cooperation and listening in our grand cooperative project.  I was in a good mood when I went to a side room to tape the interview.

At around the time the interview began, a missile was launched from Russia, aimed at Kyiv.   The air raid sirens began outside the window.  An air raid siren can mean different forms of attack, some more rapid and some less so.  Drones can cause terrible damage and kill large numbers of people, but they are not very fast.  If a missile is in the air, on the other hand, you have to move right away.  Since there was in fact a missile bearing down on Kyiv, I explained this to the interviewer and hastened to the stairs.  I learned that Ukrainian air defense had destroyed the missile as I reached the staircase.

This was all completely normal.  The Russians launched a number of very large strikes last week with missiles and drones.  Ukrainian air defense is excellent — when the Ukrainians are given the tools, they protect their people extremely well, and Kyiv is where their limited equipment is concentrated.  We picked up the interview as soon as I could re-establish the connection.

One sort of “launch” had been briefly interrupted by another, my literary book launch by a literal missile launch.  This was an infinitesimally tiny taste of the interruption tens of millions of Ukrainians face all the time from Russia’s senseless war, which changes the shapes of lives even when it does not end them.  Russia launches these attacks on civilians all the time, almost every day.  The point is not only to kill people and destroy civilian architecture but to instill a certain view of life.  Nothing good ever happens. Be afraid at all times.  Undertake nothing new yourselves.  Give up.

But people do start new projects in Ukraine.  Ukrainian writers have been productive during this war, including writers serving in the armed forces. Serhiy Zhadan, an extraordinary Kharkiv poet and novelist, has just published a book. I was able to have three discussions with him in two cities. One day there will be a collection of Ukrainian war poetry in translation, and it will be astounding. Ukrainians launch cultural projects one after the other, even if the word seems odd just now.  I took part in two such launches in just one week: the big history project in Kyiv, called Ukrainian History Global Initiative; and a new cultural institution in Lviv, INDEX, which is based around recording war experience from multiple methods and multiple perspectives.  The Literary Museum in Kharkiv has an interesting new (partly interactive) exhibition by K. Zorkin.

When we can meet, we can gather the senses of words from the settings.  I am grateful to all my friends and colleagues and hosts in Ukraine.  Without the time in Ukraine On Freedom would be a different and poorer book. And so, much as I am happy to be speaking about the book today in the UK and the US, it seems right that there was something like a launch in Kharkiv first. 

When we cannot meet, we still have the words.  We can follow the senses of the word “launch,” from the rougher to the gentler and back, along an arc that perhaps leads to some understanding.

TS, 16 September 2024

In Kharkiv, September 2024, in conversation with Volodymyr Yermolenko

Categories Cruelty, Democracy, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, International
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »