Tuesday, December 31, 2024

Some Final Reflections on the 2024 Presidential Election and the Politics of Race, Class, and Gender Within the American Electorate

by Kofi Natambu
December 31, 2024
The Panopticon Review


Eight weeks ago on November 5, 2024 the national voting public of the United States of 154 million citizens--the second largest number of voters in a presidential election in American history next to the previously record setting total of 155 million in 2020--re-elected the former 45th president from 2016-2020, Donald J. Trump, as the new 47th president of the United States in an especially bilious national election rife with the most notoriously egregious, despicable, and vile public displays of overt racism, raging misogyny, rampant xenophobia, blatantly fascist propaganda, and endlessly demagogic and manipulative misinformation campaign ever spewed by a leading presidential candidate in the modern era (i.e. since 1945).

Meanwhile the Democratic Party led by President Joe Biden dramatically collapsed upon itself following the personal struggles of its standard bearer and his subsequent inability to properly perform his duties on the campaign trail due to the now clearly visible cognitive and physical decline of Biden as a result of the various demands on the rapidly aging candidate. This crisis led to a national decline in confidence with respect to the President’s overall performance and thus clearly jeopardized his chances to win re-election. As this problem rapidly metastasized in the summer of 2024 and was exposed to the entire nation in a disastrous nationally televised debate with Trump on June 27, 2024, the Democratic Party went into an immediate tailspin with various members of its caucus in Congress as well as among its party leadership hierarchy and elites and its major donor class demanding that he now step aside from his leading role for the good of both the party and the nation.

As a result Biden was forced to do what he had been evading for at least two years and that is formally step down as the incumbent 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate and choose a viable alternative to replace him on the ballot. Given the stark options of deciding on allowing the party to go ahead with plans to hold a now very late and sure to be chaotic and clearly disruptive 'open primary' during the Democratic Party  convention in late summer, early fall leading into the general election in November or simply choose to nominate his own vice president as his open successor to replace him in the electoral campaign to defeat Donald Trump, Biden chose the latter option and insisted on making his VP Kamala Harris his pick to replace him on the ballot. Despite some inevitable grumbling and dissension within the party over the complicated ideological and administrative dynamics of allowing Biden to choose Harris the general party quickly closed ranks around Vice President Harris given the new time constraints and obvious limitations imposed on President Biden's candidancy in the wake of this mounting conflict. As a result Biden subsequently announced his nomination of Harris to the media on July 21 some three weeks after the national/global debacle of his own televised debate meltdown of June 27. The die was now cast for VP Harris to use the now remaining 107 days before the election to mount a major national campaign for the presidency under what were extremely challenging and frankly daunting circumstances.
Further the fact that the general Democratic Party itself was still not entirely clear on which specific strategic, tactical, and goal oriented directions, policies, and programs it wanted to fully commit to and struggle on behalf of in fighting for what it deemed to be a massive existential and practical task of "saving democracy” and thus putting forward a decisive alternative agenda of directly engaging and decisively defeating what the "clear and present danger" of the openly fascist politics and criminally licentious, illegal, and unconstitutional behavior by Trump, the GOP, the MAGA mass movement and its cultlike Trumpian voter base actually is and represents. In addition this entailed the DP politically combatting the many far rightwing think tanks and large dark money PACS and its supporting institutions as well as an ever widening range of local, state and federally based organizations which are dedicated to such ominous clearly fascist programs and agendas as Project 2025.
The net result of these deep seated political, cultural, and ideological realities tied of course to the larger economic and social forces that rule/dominate the political economy and much of civil society is that as always the racial, gender, and class dynamics of American society in 2024 going into 2025 are as starkly conflicted, divided, and crisis filled as ever with 87% of the national black electorate voting overwhelmingly for Harris just as they have for every single Democratic Party candidate except once since 1952, while as always 60% of all white American voters voted for Trump (and as white voters nationally have voted exclusively for every single Republican candidate since 1952 except ONCE in 1964).

What was surprising about the national vote this time around and ultimately proved even more disturbing generally speaking was the 46% of Latino American voters overall (50% of them male) who voted solidly for Trump. This vote indicated that there is a very pronounced gender split/division within the national Latino American vote where nearly 70% of Latinas voted for Harris. Since a whopping 83% of the national electorate are now represented by white and Latino voters overall and these respective national groups of voters are the top two electoral groups of American voters in terms of baseline percentages in the country as a whole these results do not auger well for at least the immediate future of the country going into the next two to three electoral cycles in 2028, 2032, and 2036.

What remains true whether we want to fully and honestly acknowledge and directly engage the fundamental facts and foundational contradictions in the body politic or not is the one glaring reality that cannot be swept under the rug no matter what the often truly clueless and self absorbed pundits and conventional Democratic and Republican party affiliated hacks say or think otherwise):

HALF of the national electorate (over 77 million people which is the second highest number of votes for any candidate in American history) openly and resoundingly voted for a fascist for President and thus a fascist government in this election. This result is far more than merely 'problematic' about what it says and signifies about the society we're actually living in today and no hopelessly fetishized and utterly reductive notion of a mythologically heroic and strangely immutable "(white) working class" is gonna save any of us any time soon (and please remember that the great majority of this segment of the national electorate along with the middle class has been voting for the Republicans at both the presidential and congressional levels since 1968 which is the major reason why out of the seven (7) Presidents who have been elected and re-elected since 1952 five (5) of them are reactionary white supremacists, corporate capitalist shills, imperial militarists, and raging sexists/misogynists from the GOP. 
Their names from 1952-2024 we should never forget are Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald W. Reagan, George W. Bush, and DONALD J. TRUMP)...


HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!


NOTE: To access previous commentaries on 'some final reflections on the presidential elections of 2020, 2016, and 2012' please click on the following links:

Monday, December 23, 2024

THE PANOPTICON REVIEW PRESENTS TWENTY OUTSTANDING BOOKS OF 2024

Please Note: The following list of books is not organized according to any personal hierarchy of the relative value of each individual book. Rather it is a list that seriously considers ALL of the books listed here to be of equal intellectual and cultural value and interest, albeit for different reasons. The bottomline on this list is that each one of these books is extraordinary and invaluable in their own right and represents some of the very best writing published in the United States in 2024.
--Kofi Natambu, Editor  

The Black AntiFascist Tradition:
Fighting Back From Anti-Lynching To Abolition
by Jeanelle K. Hope & Bill V. Mullen
Haymarket Books, 2024

 

Ella Baker And The Black Freedom Movement:
A Radical Democratic Vision
by Barbara Ransby
The University of North Carolina Press, 2024
(Second Edition)

 


Deluge:
Gaza and Israel From Crisis To Cataclysm
Edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner
OR Books, 2024 

We Charge Genocide:
American Fascism and the Rule of Law
by Bill V. Mullen
Fordham University Press, 2024
 

 
The Myth of American Idealism:
How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World
by Noam Chomsky and Nathan J. Robinson
Penguin Press, 2024
 

The Message
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
One World, 2024

Living Space: John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Free Jazz, From Analog To Digital
by Michael E. Veal
Wesleyan University Press, 2024

The Rebel's Clinic:
The Revolutionary Lives Of Frantz Fanon
by Adam Shatz
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2024
Dis// Integration:
2 Novellas, & 3 Stories & A Little Play
by William Melvin Kelley
Vintage Books, 2024
 
Defectors: The Rise Of the Latino Far Right
And What It Means For America
by Paola Ramos
Pantheon Books, 2024
 
Claudia Jones:
Visions Of A Socialist America
by Denise Lynn
Polity, 2024
 

Building the Black City:
The Transformation Of American Life
by Joe William Trotter, Jr.
University of California Press, 2024
Erasing History:
How Fascists Rewrite The Past
To Control the Future
by Jason Stanley
Atria, 2024

 

James: A Novel
by Percival Everett
Doubleday, 2024
 
The United States Governed
by Six Hundred Thousand Despots
by John Swanson Jacobs
(Edited by Jonathan D.S. Schroeder)
The University of Chicago Press, 2024
 
Frantz Fanon: Combat Breathing
by Nigel C. Gibson
Polity, 2024
You Can't Please All: Memoirs, 1980-2024
by Tariq Ali
Verso, 2024

  
The Killing of Gaza: Reports On A Catastrophe
by Gideon Levy
Verso, 2024


Rooted:
The American Legacy of Land Theft And the Modern Movement For Black Land Ownership
by Brea Baker

One World,  2024


Darkening Blackness: Race, Gender, Class,
and Pessimism in 21st Century Black Thought
by Norman Ajari
Polity, 2024
 
HONORABLE MENTIONS: 
I Dare Say: A Gerald Horne Reader
by Gerald Horne
Edited by Tionne Alliyah Parris
OR Books, 2024
 
 
Metaracism:
How Systemic Racism Devastates Black Lives
And How We Break Free
by Tricia Rose
Basic Books, 2024
 
 
We Are The Leaders We Have Been Looking For:
The W.E.B Du Bois Lectures
by Eddie Glaude, Jr.
Harvard University Press, 2024
 
 
Illiberal America: A History
by Steven Hahn
W.W. Norton and Company, 2024
 
Yale and Slavery: A History
by David W. Blight
Yale University Press, 2024

The Unseen Truth:
When Race Changed Sight in America
by Sarah Lewis
Harvard University Press, 2024
 
We Refuse:
A Forceful History of Black Resistance
by Kellie Carter Jackson
Seal Press, 2024
 
Towers Of Ivory and Steel:
How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom
by Maya Wind
Verso, 2024
 
Medgar & Myrlie:
Medgar Evers and the Love Story That Awakened America
by Joy-Ann Reid
Mariner Books, 2024
 
Madness: Race and Insanity in A Jim Crow Asylum
by Antonia Hylton
Legacy Lit, 2024
The Racket:
A Rogue Reporter vs. The American Empire
by Matt Kennard
(Second Edition)
Bloomsbury Academic, 2024


The White Bonus:
Five Families and the Cash Value Of Racism in America
by Tracie McMillan
Henry Holt and Company, 2024
  
Remember, You Are A Wiley: A Memoir
by Maya Wiley
Grand Central Publishing, 2024
 
Salvage: Readings From The Wreck
by Dionne Brand
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2024

Any Day Now: Toward A Black Aesthetic
by Larry Neal
David Zwirner Books, 2024


 

NOTE: THE PANOPTICON REVIEW HAS THUS FAR PRESENTED TWENTY OUTSTANDING BOOKS ANNUALLY FROM 2010-2024

PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL LINKS TO ACCESS THE LISTINGS OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR:
 

Friday, December 20, 2024

Prominent Public Intellectual, Philosopher, Scholar, Political Theorist, Sociologist, Teacher, And Activist Wendy Brown On the Presidential Election and the Structural Breakdown and Corruption of the U.S. Political System and the Very Idea of Democracy

PHOTO:  Wendy Brown
Image: Wikimedia Commons


Philosophy, Politics


The Violent Exhaustion of Liberal Democracy

A conversation with Wendy Brown on the U.S. presidential election, the exclusions liberal democracy is built on, and why we must aim at more than restoring its mythical former splendor.

Wendy Brown

Francis Wade

Democracy, Elections, Environment and Climate, Interview

by Francis Wade
October 21, 2024
Boston Review


Events of the past decade have prompted frenzied discussion of the state of democracy across the globe. In countries across Europe, Latin America, and Asia—as well as, of course, in the United States—far-right political figures with outwardly antidemocratic stances have won office. Their misogyny and xenophobia, their promotion of violence, and their dismissal of the climate emergency haven’t dented their support but rather secured it. In a number of cases, including Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Narendra Modi in India, they have been reelected several times over by sizable majorities. Meanwhile, the “only liberal democracy in the Middle East,” as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu likes to say, is controlled by the far-right Likud party and executing a genocide in Gaza and an expanding war in Lebanon.

Attempts to diagnose the so-called crisis of democracy have led in several directions: to the explosion of economic inequality and a widespread loss of faith in the ability of public institutions to deliver for everyone; to changes in party systems that allow radical groups to enter the mainstream; to the internal contradictions of liberalism and the bordered nation-state itself, opening the door to strongmen leaders. The list goes on.

But while the concern tends to focus on declining faith in democracy—a phenomenon as old as the system itself—less attention goes to a deeper, more pressing problem. Among liberals, democracy remains the political institution par excellence, and yet, says political theorist Wendy Brown, not only is it in an exhausted form; it is wholly unsuited to the challenges posed by ecological breakdown, and indeed is hastening it. In this interview, Brown and I discuss the crisis of democracy in all its forms, as well as a counter-conception of democracy she has been developing that seeks to orient our politics away from its destructive human-centeredness, toward connection and repair.
—Francis Wade

Francis Wade: Let’s start with an event close to home for you, both in a literal and intellectual sense: the coming U.S. elections, and what its outcome will say about the so-called “crisis of democracy” in the United States (and elsewhere). A win for the Democrats—and at this moment, such a win is deeply uncertain—would mark two straight defeats for Trump and likely be received by liberals as proof that the crisis is receding, just as it seemed to do with, for instance, Lula in Brazil. What would you say to that?


Wendy Brown: Nothing would be more dangerous than treating a win for the Democrats as proof that the crisis of democracy is receding.

First, even if Harris wins, nearly half of American voters will have voted for fascism. Those who deem the fascist label hyperbole note that many hold their noses while voting for their imagined economic interests or voting against loathed liberals. But this framing ignores the willingness of millions to abide not only a violently ethnonationalist, racist, and misogynist regime, but one that would shred what little remains of liberal democratic principles and institutions. They are voting for fascism.
“Nothing would be more dangerous than treating a win for the Democrats as proof that the crisis of democracy is receding.”

Second, Trump is symptom, not cause, of the “crisis of democracy.” Trump did not turn the nation in a hard-right direction, and if the liberal political establishment doesn’t ask what wind he caught in his sails, it will remain clueless about the wellsprings and fuel of contemporary antidemocratic thinking and practices. It will ignore the cratered prospects and anxiety of the working and middle classes wrought by neoliberalism and financialization; the unconscionable alignment of the Democratic Party with those forces for decades; a scandalously unaccountable and largely bought mainstream media and the challenges of siloed social media; neoliberalism’s direct and indirect assault on democratic principles and practices; degraded and denigrated public education; and mounting anxiety about constitutional democracy’s seeming inability to meet the greatest challenges of our time, especially but not only the climate catastrophe and the devastating global deformations and inequalities emanating from two centuries of Euro-Atlantic empire. Without facing these things, we will not develop democratic prospects for the coming century.

Sure, we would sigh with relief if Trump and Vance (the scarier one) are defeated this time around. But liberal democratic institutions—courts, majority rule, separation of powers, and more—are in tatters, democratic values are literally absent in half the population, democratic culture has been devastated by neoliberal reason, and the financing and arming of an unfathomably brutal genocide and ecocide in the Middle East by the Biden-Harris administration has soured a generation of young progressives on electoral politics.

Democrats, real democrats, need to ask whether “liberal democracy,” more than simply attacked by the right, might be a historically exhausted form, both for representing the demos and for addressing our gravest predicaments. If so, what follows?

FW: You’ve lately been developing a counter-conception of democracy that you call “reparative democracy.” What do you mean by this? And what led you to it?

WB: My thinking about reparative democracy emerges from the twin crises of democracy and ecology imperiling all planetary life today, however unevenly. It aims to bring democracy into direct engagement with the deep and lasting damages of colonial capitalist modernity, an epoch built on fossil fuels, unsustainable practices of production and consumption, extreme geopolitical inequalities, and wretched forms of destruction and exploitation for both human and nonhuman life. Such direct engagement with long histories and their effects on all possible futures isn’t part of the temporal orientation and practices of liberal democracies or democratic subjects. It requires some serious transformations of both, which we will want to talk about. But for now, the big points are these: if we are to sustain the commitment to collective self-rule promised by democracy, we must reorient it for this engagement and transformation. Conversely, if we are to have ecologically viable and just futures, democracy must be remade for reparative purposes.

Because it’s easy to misunderstand, let me just say what reparative democracy is not. It is not about restoring liberal constitutional nation-state democracy to a mythical former splendor. That is, it is not about recuperating extant democracy as if it was once fine and only now is broken. Nor is it primarily concerned with reparations to peoples and places brutalized or exploited under past regimes. Rather, my argument is that the democratic ethos and practices we require today must be relentlessly and radically reparative in relation to past and present damaging modes of life, especially over the past two centuries. This orientation breaks sharply with the notions structuring liberal democracy, including progressivism, anthropocentrism, and individual interests and rights as the essence of political freedom. So it radically transforms what democracy means and entails, including its ways of relating to past and future, its ways of casting the human and of relating human and nonhuman life, and its understandings of where democracy resides and matters.

The idea of reparative democracy emerged from both practical and theoretical concerns. Practically, liberal nation-state democracy centered on individual rights and interests is not just threatened by authoritarian and neofascist mobilizations. For many reasons, it’s unsuited to contemporary powers and predicaments, especially but not only the climate emergency. Theoretically, while many are thinking about repair these days, I have been especially influenced by Andreas Folkers’s formulation of the reparative in a critical theory of what he calls “fossil modernity.” For Folkers, the very nature of critique is altered by the ongoing damages—which he calls residuals—of intensive fossil fuel use. These include fouled land and water, a heating planet, extinction chains, and more. No longer can critique be premised on overcoming the past or on an open future. Both modernist conceits have collapsed. Instead, what I would call “honest” critique must be oriented by seeking to limit and repair (forward) the damages of fossil modernity. I extend Folkers’s appreciation of residuals to the politics of Euro-Atlantic modernity, especially empire, and adapt it for reparative democracy.

FW: The Ancient Greek conception of democracy was people-oriented by definition, and it accordingly instituted a range of separations and subordinations: of the “civilized” from the “uncivilized,” the city from the outside, humans from nature, and so forth. Various transformations to human life in the period since have intensified that separation, not least the effort by the industrializing West from the eighteenth century onward to gain greater mastery of nature so that it would better serve human “progress” and “freedom.” So is it fair to say that democracy posed a grave ecological threat from the get-go?


WB: Most good political thinking about ecological damage centers capitalism as the culprit. Certainly the reign of capital—with its need for growth based on artless and wasteful consumption, its powering by fossil fuels (coal, then oil), its valorization of profit over any other value, and more recently the capture of state projects, including decarbonization, by private finance—has been a planetary disaster. And in every way, it has roughed up the Global South more than the North. We can’t overstate the need for a different political economy for a habitable and just future.

However, Western anthropocentrism is older and deeper than capitalism, which is why socialism is insufficient for addressing the climate emergency and cratering biodiversity. As you say, democracy in the West emerges at the site of ancient Greek oppositions between polis and oikos, politics and economy, city and outside lands—freedom always aligned with the former and in opposition to the latter. This means democracy is founded in a sequester of politics from life, both social and earthly. Political freedom in the West is founded in consequential political and ecological exclusions.

The foundational splitting of politics from everything arrayed under “necessity” and “nature”—nonhuman life as well as human production and reproduction—delivers both a very limited demos and an irresponsible form of rule, or kratia, one cut off from and self-authorized to violate the sources of its own sustenance. This suggests that Western democracy, its very ontology, might be co-responsible with the voraciousness of capitalism for histories of damage to human and nonhuman life, which are now at an emergency pitch.


FW: You’ve previously cited the work of the political ecologist Pierre Charbonnier, who writes in Affluence and Freedom (2021) that “we inherit a world that no available political category is designed to manage.” It’s long been clear that liberal democracy places no constraints on our destructive impulses, and in fact seems to feed them, so can you say a little on how and where reparative democracy departs from it?


WB: Reparative democracy, as I’m thinking about it, is not a set of institutional arrangements, though it would bear on them. Rather, it is an ethos or orientation, one which refigures democratic principles, practices, and subjects. This ethos includes overcoming the foundational opposition between humans and “nature” just discussed. However, it also involves transforming the damaging methodological individualism and “presentism” of liberal democracy—its focus on what individuals want right now rather than our interlinked and common past, present, and future.

Reparative democracy would tether the demos to both the nonhuman and to histories of damage bearing on the future. This challenges liberalism’s centering of justice on rights and distribution, replacing them with sustenance and regeneration amidst interdependence. Freedom would also lose its presentist and autonomous character. To mobilize human capacities for democratic ecological repair, both personal and political freedom would have to take shape as relational, responsive, and responsible, with past and future always on their horizons.

Reparative democracy also entails a transformation of political equality. Those who can and cannot represent themselves by speaking must not count differentially. Listening, and listening differently to those who do not speak one’s own language, would have to supplant speech as the ultimate citizen practice. And, concentrations of economic and social power must be vigilantly restrained from either amplifying or suppressing any part of this expanded democratic subject and constituency. Still, political equality is about more than counting or who counts, and it exceeds measure by individual units. Political equality in a reparative mode must be responsive to deep histories of inequalities and violences—racial, gendered, regional, hemispheric, and between human and nonhuman—that bear on discursive norms and agendas in democratic spheres. Political equality also requires more effectively enfranchising life forms that democracy has not previously bothered with—earthworms and coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and bee colonies.

Framed philosophically, reparative democracy is rooted in that deep ecological materialism called for by Bruno Latour. Such materialism comprises not only modes of production and reproduction, or agency discovered in “things,” but all constellations of interdependent planetary life, human and nonhuman, shaping past, present, and future. Similarly, reparative critique does not merely “grasp things by their root,” as Marx puts it in his account of materialism. Rather, the soil nourishing the root, the historical residuals within that soil, and the conditions for its regeneration, must be grasped and addressed.

FW: How does it work in practice then? Are there contemporary examples of, as you put it earlier, “direct engagement with long histories” on a scale that suggests a kind of reparative social compact in the making?

WB: There are instances of reparative democracy all over the world. Some are fleeting and partial; others are more sustained. Many emerge from the indigenous and the young, who do not need to be told that human and nonhuman life are interdependent, that the world is in an emergency state, and that constitutional liberal democracy is both incapable of addressing that emergency and itself an exhausted form. 
 
“#StopCopCity brings into relief why ordinary political channels routinely fail the future so resoundingly.”

One contemporary example can be found in #StopCopCity in Atlanta, Georgia. Cop City is the oppositional nickname for a planned militarized police training facility that involves clear-cutting forests abutting Atlanta’s poorest and Blackest neighborhoods. The $100 million project is largely privately funded and driven by the needs and demands of the global corporations and finance networks (investment banks, law, insurance, and consulting firms) at the heart of Atlanta’s current growth and wealth generation. The city government kowtowed to these global economic powers to repeatedly endorse the project, spurning local public opposition that spans local and national racial justice organizations; ecological and conservation groups; lawyers guilds; area schools; neighborhood, church and community associations; abolitionists; and anarchists. These groups have not only fought together, they have learned from and protected one another. Black community organizations defend white anarchist tree sitters, and many anarchists have allied with liberals seeking to stop the facility with legal maneuvers. The state has responded with outsized military force and juridical harshness, charging occupiers and demonstrators with outlandish crimes and threatening scandalously long prison sentences.

#StopCopCity melds ecology with racial justice aims and opposes economies of destruction of human and nonhuman life and wholly bought political representation. It also foregrounds all the painful and damaging histories on this patch of land: from the dispossession of early indigenous inhabitants to slave-based cotton farming and to carceral institutions that harbor racialized and gendered abuses. The movement constantly draws attention to the dangers of deforestation and “forest fragmentation” and to the neighborhoods, already suffering from neglect and traumatized by racialized policing, that will be most impacted by the loss of forest tree canopy and the presence of a militarized police training site.

Altogether, these features make #StopCopCity simultaneously an instance of reparative democracy and a demonstration of why it is so essential. It brings into relief why ordinary political channels routinely fail the future so resoundingly. The movement is a powerful critique of liberal democracy today—institutional corruptions and erosions, its privileging of capital interests, its blinding individualism, its ferocious repression of protest, and its radical exclusion of nonhuman worlds.


FW: Your 2015 book Undoing the Demos warned of the peril that neoliberalism posed to both democracy and “the meaning of citizenship itself.” It argued that no area of life was now spared from “capital enhancement,” that “neoliberalism is the rationality through which capitalism finally swallows humanity.” The picture it painted of our future was bleak. How does your thinking on reparative democracy today speak to the arguments you set out a decade ago?

WB: Neoliberalism contributed profoundly to the crisis of actually existing democracy from which theories and practices of reparative democracy emerge. Its elevation of markets to the highest form of truth and governing displaced democratic principles ranging from political equality to legislated justice. Its privatization or extractive private financing of every public good compounded its devastation of working- and middle-class prospects that turned millions in a hard-right direction. Its conversion of everything and everyone to market behavior did not spare the political sphere, which has become steadily more ruthless and less oriented by the common good, and features increasingly quotidian corruption of political institutions for partisan ends. Neoliberalism escalated the capture of law and especially of rights—that essential liberal democratic icon—to amplify the wealth and power of the powerful (from mega-churches to the mega-rich to mega-corporations) and diminish the power of the people in politics and policy.

So, yes, neoliberalism is part of the story of cratering liberal democracy.

But only part. Even as it saturates everything, neoliberalism does not explain everything, and it does not carry the whole weight of liberal democracy’s mounting failures and exhaustion. Ecocide has been intensified by deregulated capital and states increasingly subordinated to institutional finance but is older and bigger than these. Racist gerrymandering and voter suppression is an old story. And while the Global South has been slugged harder than the North by neoliberal austerity, big finance, and exploitative manufacturing and extractivist practices, modern Euro-Atlantic democracy carried empire in its belly and carved the earth accordingly. 
 
“Even as it saturates everything, neoliberalism does not explain everything. Ecocide is older than deregulated capital and institutional finance.”

As I suggested earlier, reparative democracy arises from the consequential exclusions, violences, and individualist and presentist orientation of modern democracy across its liberal, social, and socialist variants. Neoliberal effects make these uniquely vivid but are not singularly causal.

FW: Recognition of the interdependency of human and nonhuman life seems central to your concept, but it’s on display at the #StopCopCity protests in large part because of—and say if you disagree—the very particular set of circumstances being opposed: destruction of already diminished forest cover in the service of greater state militarization, in close proximity to communities that have long felt the effects of state violence. So I wonder, how, in the absence of Cop City–like circumstances, recognition of that interdependency, or that human-nature connectedness, might be engineered, especially in modern secular and individualist societies that lack the core emotional and spiritual bonding (for instance, of ancestor worship or other forms of veneration of place) that have historically tethered humans to the nonhuman world?


WB: I’m enough of a materialist to know it is impossible to engineer any kind of consciousness in the absence of conditions that would incite and foster it. Put the other way around, given liberalism’s human-centeredness and individualism, and capitalism’s alienation of us from the source or production of almost everything we need and consume, what hope is there of appreciating our deep imbrication with all planetary life or becoming creatures who easily share, or have cares beyond, their own lives?

The answer, of course, rests in the effects of the multiple crises that touch everyone on the planet, however differently: crises of climate change, extinction chains and biodiversity collapse, water availability, breathable air, pandemics, forever chemicals, and microplastics everywhere. All of these confront us directly with the perils of treating nonhuman life or “nature” as mere exploitable resource. All bring us face to face with the disastrous conceits of Euro-Atlantic modernity: individualism, boundless growth and consumption, fossil fueled energy, “conquering” nature, Europe and Other.

These crises are conditions for curiosity, learning, reorienting, transforming. (Of course they are also conditions for denialism, hoarding, and violent barricading.) However, even with these conditions, a deep grasp of our interdependency, and a politics that addresses it, are not automatic; they have to be developed. For reparative democracy oriented by the ecological emergency, for example, we need new ways of envisioning and hearing the nonhuman and our place within it. Sound theory, and especially bioacoustics, has much to teach us here. So also do some parts of indigenous cosmologies and ways of knowing.



FW: This brings me back to something you said earlier, that “listening . . . would have to supplant speech as the ultimate citizen practice.” For millennia, rational speech or language has been understood as a key signifier of politically able actors—in other words, without rational language, you can’t do politics; because only we humans are thought to possess it, we are the only true political creatures. And it seems that no amount of research into, for instance, the democratic practices of certain animals has been able to shift that. As others have explored in work on “political listening,” this view has helped drive the lasting separation of humans from nonhumans. You said just now that “we need new ways of envisioning and hearing the nonhuman.” How do we do that?


WB: Yes, we conventionally identify speech as the premier political action, and free speech as an icon of democracy. We also believe this comes to us from ancient Athens. In fact, the notion of isegoria, one of the three pillars of Athenian democracy, translates as the equal right to speak and be heard in the Assembly. It is a political right of all citizens to persuade the collective power that is the people. Isegoria identifies practices of speech and listening that are constitutive of democracy, not derivative from it. It could not be further from the liberal notion of saying whatever, wherever, because you have a personal right of expression. It’s not a personal right to speak but a political right to be heard, shared equally by all citizens.
“Imagine if we all actually listened to cries of pain and grief at the site of contemporary genocidal violence!”

Listening as well as political persuasion have been scraped out of liberal free speech politics. This compounds the problem of what I am suggesting we need in the Anthropocene, an epoch in which our imbrication with all earthly life, and capacity to destroy it, is so vivid. Listening, not speaking, is one of our most powerful forms of learning this imbrication and developing a politics appropriate to it. All life listens for survival, as a means of detecting food, water, danger, or degraded conditions. Many species—from bees and plants to worms and whales—also listen in order to coordinate among themselves for food, shelter, defense. Call it politics, if you will.

Humans need to learn to listen better for exactly these purposes, for our survival and to coordinate among ourselves, in the context of earthly life. But we have such limited hearing, have filled the world with so much noise (and then slapped on noise-cancelling headphones to block it), and have so degraded the importance of listening compared to speech in political life, that revalorizing and training our listening capacities seems nothing short of revolutionary. Fortunately, the rich fields of sound studies and animal and plant science, along with digital technologies of many kinds, are our friends here.

Together these help us to hear and to understand what we are hearing, including pain, poisoning and death in human and nonhuman worlds. Imagine if we all actually listened to cries of pain and grief at the site of contemporary genocidal violence! Books like Karen Bakker’s The Sounds of Life, Brandon LaBelle’s Acoustic Justice, Eva Meijer’s When Animals Speak, and Robin Wall Kimmerer’s Braiding Sweetgrass open these doors. Donna Haraway, Anna Tsing, and the Latourian School contribute. The point is to develop an ecological ear that most indigenous communities had, and also to learn from nonhuman communications how to listen better. As Bakker writes, with digital bioacoustics “we can listen not only to turtles but also like turtles.” This technology “reveals subtleties that might escape human listeners.” Becoming such listeners facilitates enfranchising “nature” as part of us—a far better strategy than allocating nature human rights to obtain political protection.

Becoming listeners could deprovincialize the cares of democrats, allowing us to orient toward conditions for thriving beyond our personal or national borders. Nothing could be more important in a time of ecological emergency and the persistent violence of colonial modernity.
 
 
ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS:


Wendy Brown

Wendy Brown is UPS Foundation Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study. Her latest book is Nihilistic Times: Thinking with Max Weber.


Francis Wade

Francis Wade is a London-based journalist covering political violence, identity, borders, and displacement. He is author of Myanmar’s Enemy Within: Buddhist Violence and the Making of a Muslim Other.

THIS IS WHAT GENUINE FASCISM AND ITS VILE HENCHMEN AND WOMEN ACTUALLY LOOKS, SOUNDS, AND ACTS LIKE AND THIS IS WHAT THE DEADLY AND CRIMINALLY CORRUPT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ACTIVELY OFFERING THE NATION. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION…

And as always...

DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU


https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-influence-vought-wiles-miller-epshteyn-yarvin/

Feature

 
A Guide to Some of the Key Movers and Influencers in Trump’s Orbit

While showboats like Elon Musk and RFK Jr. get all the attention, the real power in a second Trump term is likely to be wielded by quietly effective bureaucrats and policy intellectuals like these men and women.

by Chris Lehmann
December 18, 2024
The Nation



Miller, Vought, and Yarvin. Illustration by Eli Valley.This article appears in the January 2025 issue, with the headline “Trump’s World.”

Shortly after Donald Trump won reelection to the presidency, he announced a series of cabinet nominations that redoubled his past derangements of executive-branch governance, tapping a confederacy of thieves and shysters—from accused sexual assaulter Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense to loyal baksheesh recipient and Jeffrey Epstein helpmeet Pam Bondi as attorney general to vax-denying conspiracy monger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as director of Health and Human Services. This is to say nothing of his standard-issue trolling nominees, like Tulsi Gabbard as head of the Directorate of National Intelligence or Elise Stefanik—the dictionary definition of whatever the opposite of a diplomat is—as ambassador to the United Nations. But for all the fireworks attending these big-name announcements, the real power in a second Trump term is likely to be wielded by quietly effective bureaucrats and policy intellectuals—people who intimately understand, and gleefully prosecute, politics as war by other means. Even though the disbursement of power behind Trump’s throne is far from a settled question, here’s a preliminary guide to the key figures to watch as the authoritarian nightmare before us unfolds.

Stephen Miller

Along with the returning president, Stephen Miller is the most prominent holdover from the first incarnation of the Trump White House. It’s not hard to see why. Miller stormed to the front ranks of Trump promoters in DC when he left his gig as communications director for Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to lay the foundations for Trump’s brutal immigration policies, beginning with the ban on Muslim travelers and continuing on to family separation at the border and the use of public health statutes to shut the border down during the Covid pandemic. His official title, senior adviser, deliberately obscured the scale of his in-house influence: By the end of Trump’s term, Miller was the vindictive face of MAGA xenophobia and grievance politics, and the most effective force translating them into policy.

During the Biden interregnum, Miller spent his time outside of government at the helm of the America First Legal Foundation, a right-wing litigation clearing house that aggressively pursues a MAGA agenda in the courts. Miller touted it as “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU,” but unlike that group, which pursues free-speech litigation on behalf of unpopular conservative clients as well as a roster of left-leaning plaintiffs, America First Legal goes to court only in service of Trumpian crusades. It brought suit against putative trans indoctrination in the Mesa, Arizona, school district, and has sued both corporate and university employers in cases of alleged reverse discrimination brought by white male plaintiffs. The group also filed an amicus brief in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents case, claiming that the National Archives lacked the legal authority to make a criminal referral—an argument that even Trump-osculating federal judge Aileen Cannon called a “red herring.”

Red herrings are pretty much the group’s stock in trade. In 2022, America First spent just $1.7 million on legal expenses and more than $29 million on promotion and advertising. Miller’s position as a carny barker for the right-wing Kulturkampf was brought to light once more this fall, when the Chilean reporter José María Del Pino did what virtually none of his US counterparts can be stirred to do and repeatedly challenged Miller’s bogus claim that violent criminals were disproportionately represented in the ranks of recent Venezuelan immigrants to the United States.

Yet peddling discredited urban legends about immigration is an executive-branch credential that Trump and Miller have reinvented—and so Miller is back in action as Trump’s deputy chief of staff. Like his former job title, this one is deceptively modest. With Trump already committed to launching mass deportations under the pretext of a national immigration emergency on his first day back in office, Miller will once more be driving the signature domestic policies of the White House. And with the extensive list of congressional and legal allies he compiled at America First, he will be able to command yet greater deference throughout the Republican power structure. As Trump embarks on shaping his second term as a prolonged revenge tour, Stephen Miller will, against all odds, be a much more lethal dispenser of punishment from on high than he was the first time out.

January 2025 Issue

Curtis Yarvin

You probably already know about the reactionary excesses of Vice President–elect JD Vance: his hardcore natalist opposition to reproductive rights, his dalliances with replacement theory, his election denialism, his blood-and-soil brand of Herrenvolk nationalism. But you may not know about the figure who’s served as a fascist pied piper to Vance and scores of other Silicon Valley heimat bros: the pro-slavery monarchist Curtis Yarvin, who blogs under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. During his 2022 Senate run, Vance embraced one of Yarvin’s pet causes—an initiative called Retire All Government Employees, or (should the radical character of the plan somehow elude you) RAGE. Vance laid out the reasoning behind it in a podcast interview a year earlier, declaring that in a second Trump term, “We need to fire every mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” Pressed on the legality of this rolling purge, Vance said that Trump should just ignore the law. Now this frontal assault on government workers is also a central plank of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint to transform the federal government into a sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale during a second Trump term.

The animus behind Yarvin’s agenda comes from a paranoid vision of key social institutions—the government, the universities, the media—as a monolithic “Cathedral” of addled progressive groupthink that somehow exerts a Sauron-like power over American public life. (Labored Lord of the Rings metaphors are a tic of Yarvin’s prose style—a common affliction among Valley reactionaries, most notably in the maunderings of fellow Yarvinite and Vance patron Peter Thiel.) Resistance to the Cathedral’s perfidy, in the Yarvin worldview, is justified by any means necessary. In a 2022 interview with Vox, Yarvin enthused that “you’re not that far from a world in which you can have a candidate” overthrow the Cathedral from the top down. “I think you can get away with it,” he said. “That’s sort of what people already thought was happening with Trump. To do it for real is not going to make them much more hysterical, and it’s actually much more effective!” While Yarvin won’t likely have any formal ties to a Trump White House, he won’t need them: Trump’s chief lieutenant is an enthusiastic true believer.

Russell Vought

Russell Vought, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the first Trump administration, is perhaps the quintessential conservative-movement insider. He’s spent his time outside of government running a Christian nationalist think tank called the Center for Renewing America, a theologically tinged hothouse of conspiracy theories, election denialism, and lurid right-wing persecution fantasies. Vought led the policy committee at the 2024 Republican National Convention and, perhaps most crucially, is the central architect of Project 2025. In his contribution to the Heritage Foundation’s policy bible, Vought pledged holy war on a federal bureaucracy allegedly gone amok “carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.”

It’s the same lamentation you hear from Curtis Yarvin, albeit in a less vulgar, more pious register. And Vought’s proposed remedies are just as radical as Yarvin’s. Among the measures he endorses to face down the Great Satan of the administrative state are the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency and the use of federal military force to quash dissent. “We have detailed agency plans,” Vought bragged in a 2024 speech. “We are writing the actual executive orders. We are writing the actual regulations now, and we are sorting out the legal authorities for all of what President Trump is running on.”

Vought was reportedly in the running to serve as chief of staff in the second Trump White House, but he’s now on track to reprise his role at OMB, the key nerve center of day-to-day White House operations. In one way or another, he’s sure to preside over the federal bureaucracy with singular righteous zeal, exhorting his corps of Christian soldiers to continue marching as to war.

 

Wiles and Epshteyn.  Illustration by Eli Valley    


Susie Wiles

A cochair of Trump’s 2024 campaign, Susie Wiles is the quintessential power behind the throne. A steady stream of media profiles throughout the campaign stressed her quiet influence and her penchant for staying out of the spotlight—traits that put her at odds with former Trump campaign director Corey Lewandowski, who was brought on to unleash Trump’s thwarted rage for chaos in the homestretch. Wiles emerged from that power struggle with her influence intact—and, within days of Trump’s victory, he had tapped her as his chief of staff.

Trump clearly wants to depart from the initial miscues he made in filling that position in his tumultuous first term, and Wiles is perfectly positioned to take up the maximum-sycophant mantle relinquished by Trump’s indicted January 6 co-conspirator Mark Meadows. For all her careful burnishing of her image as a competent, retiring campaign hand, she has, like most campaign professionals, a decidedly Machiavellian streak; there’s a reason her colleagues have designated her “the ice maiden.” Wiles famously fell afoul of her other big-ticket MAGA client, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, after an internal power struggle within his campaign brain trust: DeSantis later accused her of leaking damning documents about his cozy relationships with lobbyists and donors. DeSantis’s allegations appear to be baseless, but his hostility toward the mastermind behind his narrow 2018 election to the governorship rages on; he got Trump to cashier Wiles in 2019 and initially told Trump in 2020 that if he went ahead with plans to bring her back, he might withdraw his support. (Of course, DeSantis’s later 2024 primary run against Trump rendered all such threats moot.)


Now Wiles is very much in the deepest reaches of Trump’s circle of trust; according to federal prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment in the Mar-a-Lago prosecution, she was one of the unnamed people to whom Trump showed a classified map of an unnamed country, and she reportedly met with Smith’s investigative team about the purloined papers. With the prosecution deep-sixed by the Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon, no one is likely to know anytime soon what the candidate and his campaign manager were conferring over—but the whole set piece was no doubt encouraging to Trump as he sought to audition a toadying new chief of staff in the Meadows mold. With a proven legacy of accomplishment in what now passes for normie Republican politics, Wiles should be ideally positioned to gratify Trump’s operatic quest for vengeance and dominance while ensuring the internal workings of his White House. 

Boris Epshteyn

A longtime legal fixer for Trump, Boris Epshteyn has gained greater influence as the president-elect’s legal troubles have multiplied. Epshteyn, a former investment banker who worked for a controversially short stint in the communications office of Trump’s first presidency, was the adviser who directed Trump to attempt to delay all the pending trials before him with a blizzard of obstruction tactics—a strategy that now has Trump in a position to pardon himself and effectively terminate most of the proceedings against him. (It’s also noteworthy that Epshteyn himself stands to benefit from this blanket legal offensive, as he faces nine felony counts of election fraud stemming from his role in promoting a slate of fake Arizona electors to overturn Biden’s victory there.)

As this résumé entry shows, Epshteyn is an enthusiastic political brawler and a die-hard Trump loyalist. He entered national politics as an aide to Sarah Palin when she was a vice presidential candidate; after he wore out his welcome in the White House communications office, Epshteyn recorded a series of fawning video commentaries about Trump that ran as mandatory programming across the vast right-wing Sinclair TV network. Even in his role as transition whisperer, Epshteyn managed to combine extreme fealty with extreme opportunism, reportedly soliciting pay-to-play fees from would-be cabinet appointments. Thus far, Trump has stood by his designated crony; after all, Trump would never have surged into national leadership if he hadn’t been a devoted student of government-by-corruption.

Whether Epshteyn ultimately stays or goes, his fingerprints are already all over the new Trump White House. He reportedly helped engineer the appointment of Scott Bessent to head up the Treasury Department (after supplying the nominee with a crash course in Trumpenomics by, allegedly, soliciting one of the aforementioned bribes), and he has also been pivotal in remaking federal law enforcement into an outlet of MAGA mob justice by maneuvering loyal apparatchiks like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel into key positions. Epshteyn has also reportedly advocated that Trump bypass traditional FBI clearances for his cabinet nominees and instead rely on an informal series of background checks conducted by contracted private investigators.

His outsize role has indeed drawn the ire of another prominent toady of the Trump transition team, Elon Musk, who reportedly has challenged Epshteyn’s authority on key cabinet picks; an explosive rhetorical race to the Trump-appeasing bottom ensued between the two flunkies at a Mar-a-Lago dinner table.

Epshteyn has already sought to leverage his influential role in shaping the new Trump White House into a post as envoy to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war—even though the Russian-born lawyer has zero background in diplomacy or foreign policy. Trump reportedly took the request under serious consideration before dismissing it—at least for now. But it’s clear that Epshteyn possesses the only credential that matters in a Trump White House. “He always sought to be close to Trump,” an official from Trump’s first campaign told Politico. “He tells the president what he always wants to hear.”



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

 


Chris Lehmann

 

 
Chris Lehmann is the DC Bureau chief for The Nation and a contributing editor at The Baffler. He was formerly editor of The Baffler and The New Republic, and is the author, most recently, of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream (Melville House, 2016).