We think of pandemics as something out of the ordinary, a dangerous disruption to everyday life; but the reality is that they are a recurrent, even normal, feature of human history, viewed across the millennia. The process of industrialisation during the nineteenth century brought repeated waves of cholera, typhus and typhoid, all of which spread easily in the crowded and insanitary conditions of rapidly expanding cities that were attracting a constant flow of immigrants, many of whom lived close to the poverty line. Even so, the impact of cholera was not entirely negative. It was soon realised that the solution to its spread lay in better sanitation; the consequence in London was the construction of massive sewers that still serve the city.

Pandemics within modern cities have many antecedents, and not simply within urban societies. Thus we would probably want to include within the category of pandemics the diseases, including smallpox and measles, that wiped out maybe nine-tenths of the native population in the areas of the Americas conquered by Spain and other colonial powers in the aftermath of Columbus’s discovery of the route across the Atlantic. Sometimes this is cast as a European crime against native peoples, and there is no doubt that the heavy physical demands Columbus placed on the native people of his major acquisition, Hispaniola (today Haiti and the Dominican Republic) weakened still further what little resistance people had to the European diseases that arrived with the conquerors. But this, along with the devastating effects of the conquest of Mexico and Peru, was not an intended consequence of these invasions: the Spaniards wanted to make use of the manpower of the native population, but as that population died out they had recourse to the importation of black slaves, the beginning of the infamous Atlantic slave trade. One could therefore argue that the trade in black slaves across the Atlantic had its roots in the great American pandemics of the early sixteenth century. 

Europe had experienced its own devastating pandemic a century and a half earlier, with the arrival of bubonic plague in 1347. There is some evidence of small-scale outbreaks of bubonic plague, endemic among small rodents, along the famous Silk Roads that linked the area of modern Ukraine with the vast expanses of Eurasia, as fast east as China. The major Genoese trading centre in the Black Sea, Caffa in Crimea, was under siege by a Tatar army that used the bodies of plague victims as cannon fodder, catapulting them into the city and infecting its inhabitants; from there the disease spread on Genoese ships along the trade routes that led into the Mediterranean, arriving before long in Messina. Setting aside the multiple pandemics in the Americas, just mentioned, the Black Death is thought to have wiped out up to half of the population of Europe and the Mediterranean within about five years. In its pneumonic form it was most lethal – its mortality rate approached 100%. 

Recovery was severely hampered by its return again and again in the fourteenth century, and spasmodically thereafter. Its economic effects were drastic and we can talk literally of economic and social dislocation: large areas of the countryside were depopulated, and survivors often migrated to the towns where demand for workers was strong, significantly changing the balance between the rural and urban population. However, it is important to distinguish the short and long-term effects of the Black Death. Those who inherited wealth from deceased relatives often found themselves better off, with the result that demand for bettr food and for high and medium quality goods, such as cloths, expanded. A new and confident urban middle class emerged. Outside the cities, empty areas were given over to sheep and pastoral activity boomed in areas such as Spain and southern Italy. The Black Death effected an economic revolution. 

People learned to live with plague. Great cities such as Milan might lock themselves down. Quarantine was taken seriously. Plague increasingly became endemic, that is, confined to particular areas, with severe outbreaks in Milan in 1630 (memorably described by Manzoni), in London in 1665 and as late 1720 in Marseille. Europeans had no defence against this disease because it had been absent from the region for many centuries. Although the plague reported by the Greek historian and general Thucydides which took hold of Athens in 430-26 BC appears to have been typhoid rather than bubonic plague, the pandemic that hit the Byzantine Empire in AD 541-9 is now known to have been bubonic plague, and appears to have had similar effects to the Black Death: very heavy mortality, major economic consequences in the countryside as a result of population loss, and the shrinking of towns in parts of the eastern Mediterranean. 

In its pneumonic form this disease was spread by droplets in people’s breath, and many of the worst pandemics have been transmitted in this way, even when the bacillus or virus is totally different. The Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-20 is thought to have killed as many as 500,000,000 people worldwide, and its spread was facilitated by the movement of armies at the end of the First World War – it was not in fact Spanish, and Spain had kept out of the war. But wartime deprivation had probably weakened resistance in many of the countries it reached. Mutations in the influenza virus have been watched carefully, bearing in mind events such as the Asian flu of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu of 1968. 

But such diseases can also lose some of their potency, to judge, perhaps prematurely, from Covid-19. A lesson from the history of the Black Death is that a bacterium or virus that wants to survive cannot risk exceptionally heavy mortality for a long period. In such cases it kills not just people but ultimately itself as well, since the presence of many fewer people mean that it loses the opportunity to spread.

L'articolo Pandemics and the course of history proviene da InsideOver.

Expectations are widespread throughout the world that the election of Joe Biden to the US presidency marks a dramatic change in both US domestic and foreign policy. That belief is based on the pervasive stereotype that Donald Trump’s presidency epitomized authoritarian populism at home and a surly unilateralism, if not outright “isolationism,” abroad.

Like many stereotypes, such a view of the Trump years contains some elements of truth, but it also includes exaggerated or inaccurate features. Joe Biden’s presidency  undoubtedly will adopt markedly different policies on certain issues. Indeed, some of those changes have already become evident during the initial weeks of his administration.

However, those who assume that Biden will pursue a radically progressive domestic agenda and adopt a foreign policy nearly identical to the one that Barack Obama epitomized are likely to encounter some major surprises.  

What Changes are Coming?

There is no question that certain changes are in store regarding a variety of domestic issues.  Among the new president’s initial flurry of executive orders were those that reversed the Trump administration’s policies on environmental policy. The United States will rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and cancel the Keystone XL oil pipeline—high-priority objectives for environmental groups. Biden also signed executive orders rescinding Trump’s restrictive policies, and instead established new protections for LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and immigration.

All of Biden’s steps were consistent with the overall progressive agenda. However, the administration has also signaled that it may propose new legislation to target domestic terrorism. That approach splits the progressive coalition, as some progressives worry about possible abuses of civil liberties — a fear that many conservatives and libertarians share.

On the foreign policy front, Biden and his advisers are moving to restore a greater US commitment to international cooperation. In addition to rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, the administration reversed Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and announced that the United States would seek a five-year extension to the New START arms control treaty. Biden’s move paid immediate dividends when Vladimir Putin’s government confirmed that Russia likewise would continue to abide by the provisions of New START.

Biden’s administration also pursued conciliatory steps on some other issues. Washington confirmed that it wants to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the multilateral agreement that had placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program. Trump had torpedoed that measure, leading to a nasty policy split with the European allies and causing Iran to take steps to escalate its nuclear efforts. Biden’s foreign policy advisers and congressional allies also indicated that other changes might be in store with respect to Washington’s Middle East policy, including ending US support for the brutal war that Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have waged in Yemen since 2015.

Many Things Will Stay the Same

Nevertheless, one must be careful not to overstate the extent or significance of the likely policy changes.  For example, there is no indication that US ties to Israel will diminish; indeed, the new administration made it clear immediately that Washington would abide by the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, despite continuing complaints from Arab governments. There is no sign whatever that US economic and military aid to Israel will decrease even slightly.

Other aspects of US policy in both the Middle East and Central Asia also look as though they will continue on autopilot.  Despite Washington’s willingness to return to the JCPOA, overall US hostility toward Iran remains intense. Similarly, there are no prospects for a significant reduction in US meddling in the Syrian and Afghanistan conflicts. Indeed, the Biden administration appears receptive to perpetuating those US military missions indefinitely, and is coming under pressure from NATO allies to do so.

What About US-China Relations?

Biden and his advisers do place high priority in restoring cooperation with America’s traditional allies in both Europe and East Asia. However, even that agenda is likely to encounter more difficulties than anticipated. One key objective of the new administration is to enlist the NATO allies in a common front to deal with China. In remarks delivered on December 28, Biden stated that “as we compete with China and hold China’s government accountable for its abuses on trade, technology, human rights, and other fronts, our position will be much stronger when we build coalitions of like-minded partners and allies to make common cause with us in defense of our shared interests and values.”

That quest is likely to fail. Indeed, just two days after the president-elect’s comments, the European Union signed a major investment deal with Beijing, despite requests from the Biden team to hold off on such a decision.  Evidence is even stronger that Washington cannot count on European solidarity with the United States if it comes to a diplomatic confrontation with China over human rights or other issues. That point became glaringly apparent last year when the Trump administration failed in its efforts to enlist the European allies for a united response to Beijing’s imposition of a new national security law on Hong Kong.

The China issue is perhaps the most graphic case in which Biden’s policy — much to the frustration of many U.S. allies — may not differ much from the confrontational approach Trump adopted.

The administration’s initial actions regarding Taiwan underscore that point. Not only did Biden invite Taiwan’s de facto ambassador to attend his inauguration, the first time that occurred since the United States switched diplomatic relations to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1979, but administration officials have issued several statements emphasizing Washington’s “rock-solid” commitment to Taiwan’s defense.

The United States also dispatched an aircraft carrier battle group to the South China Sea as a display of U.S. military power in the region barely a week after Biden took office. The Biden administration may seek to ease the trade war that Trump launched against China, but US policy toward the PRC on the security front looks decidedly uncompromising.

The bottom line is that Joe Biden likely will seek to govern as a slightly left-of-center president on domestic affairs, while delaying or diluting the more grandiose progressive goals, such as Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, and adopting a surprisingly strong “law and order” stance.

His approach to foreign affairs will resemble the policies that the Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) who preceded Trump, but with a noticeably more hawkish posture toward China. In short, Biden will not be the architect of dramatic policy change that many of his supporters want or his opponents fear. Instead, he will leave his own distinctive, but generally moderate, mark on policy.

L'articolo Prospects for Change and Continuity with President Joe Biden proviene da InsideOver.

As many expected, former US President Donald Trump is not going away quietly following his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He reportedly wants to set up his own MAGA (Make America Great Again) party to challenge disloyal Republicans who helped impeach him in the House or else are considering voting to convict him in the upcoming Senate trial.

Other news reports suggest that the party could be called the Patriot Party.

Trump Has Massive Electoral Appeal

The prospect of setting up a new political party has many advantages. Last year, Trump won more than 70 million votes, the second highest total in American history. Nationally, he obtained more than a 47 percent share of the vote and despite his defeat, he won the decisive state of Florida.

He has an incredible grip over large swathes of the US electorate, many of whom are devoted to him. Trump managed to win over voters that the Republicans have struggled to win in the past and he remains the GOP’s greatest asset even after his defeat. Who else in the current Republican establishment can inspire such a following?

Of course, if the Senate succeeds in impeaching him, then he would not be allowed to stand for election ever again. But should he survive impeachment, Trump will focus on regaining the White House in 2024.

Third Parties Have a Patchy History in the US

Third parties have always underperformed in US presidential elections. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt established the Progressive Bull Moose Party and despite his resounding success, it has been argued that by splitting the center-right vote, the former US president actually made it easier for Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency that year.

Eighty years later, Ross Perot stood as an independent candidate in the 1992 US election and caused Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush to lose the presidency to Bill Clinton.

No matter how well a MAGA party performs in 2024, American elections are a two-horse race and it would be more advantageous for Trump to stand for the Republicans again. But the former president would need to make some changes to appeal to the highly-educated GOP voters who deserted him during the 2018 mid-term elections and again in 2020. An analysis discovered that many of these people found his presidency too off-putting and often offensive, though they gave him a chance in 2016.

To succeed, Trump would need to expand his support beyond his base.

Trump Should Campaign on a Return to Prosperity

Compared to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden was seen as hard to demonize, and that is why the Democratic establishment were keen to make him their candidate. He appealed to white working-class voters in the Rust Belt and he did not carry the same baggage as Clinton, despite reports about Hunter Biden’s dealings emerging before the election.

In 2024, Trump will have two distinct advantages: his handling of the coronavirus won’t haunt him as badly, since the pandemic should have been dealt with by then. American elections are often fought on the premise of how better the country is compared to four years ago, and if the economy has not improved by then, Trump can play on his strong pre-COVID-19 economic record. The coronavirus devastated the former president’s economic record, but there are already signs that Biden has made the economic situation worse by implementing a fracking ban that has cost jobs in the oil and gas industry in New Mexico. 

The Democrats fought the 2020 election by campaigning for a return to “normalcy” and civility, but Trump should focus his energy on uniting the Republicans behind a message of a return to prosperity.

Establishing a third party is a waste of time and energy and it is doubtful that the likes of Senator Liz Cheney, who many commentators believe is launching her own 2024 bid, can appeal to Trump voters. Division will only play into the Democrats’ hands. To add further insult to injury, Trump has dismissed the idea himself and has announced that he is concentrating on helping the Republicans win back control of Congress in 2022.

L'articolo Will Creating a MAGA Party Work for Trump? proviene da InsideOver.

Joe Biden has become the 46th President of the United States. Shortly before noon EST on Jan. 20, Biden was sworn in and delivered an impressive inaugural speech that not only marked a profound contrast to Donald Trump’s tone in recent years but contained one central message: unity.

‘Democracy Has Prevailed’

Biden said that there could be no peace without unity and no progress in his inaugural address, only bitterness and anger. He pledged to work with all his heart for unity and reconciliation.

“With unity, we can do great things, important things,” said Biden. “This is our moment in history. And unity is the way forward.” American had overcome past challenges with unity.

“I will be a president to all Americans,” Biden promised, including for those who did not vote for him – extending his arms to Trump voters. “This is the day of democracy.” It is not a candidate’s victory that was celebrated, but the victory of democracy. “Democracy has prevailed.”

Remembering the Victims of COVID-19

Biden also remembered the people who had lost their lives in the coronavirus pandemic. He denounced the inequality between the ethnic groups and called on his fellow citizens to rethink: “Let’s make a fresh start, everyone together.”

Even though the president did not mention his predecessor by name, it was apparent that Biden was focused on a fundamental departure from the past four years’ political spirit and about a paradigm shift, a return to normalcy.

Biden also spoke out against the spread of false reports and conspiracy theories, which had caused the country tremendous problems: “We have to reject the culture in which facts are manipulated and even fabricated,” he said. America must be better than that.

And he also promised America’s partners a fresh start – “we will go into the world again”, he said and announced that the USA would be a “strong partner for security and peace.”

An Unprecedented Inauguration

Biden’s inauguration at the Capitol took place under unprecedented security precautions. Two weeks ago, violent supporters of Donald Trump stormed the building. The fear of further violence was, therefore, significant. The center of Washington was cordoned off on a large scale. In addition to numerous police officers, thousands of the National Guard members were deployed. Instead of hundreds of thousands of spectators, around 200,000 small US flags represented the people in and around the National Mall. But despite appearances by Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez, the presence of 25,000 National Guardsmen in the capital always reminded one of the carnage the country had recently faced.

Biden takes over the most powerful office in the world in an unprecedented time of crisis. With more than 400,000 coronavirus-related deaths, the US is the country with the highest number of victims worldwide and is in a devastating economic crisis.

In regular times, Biden’s day would have ended with attending numerous inaugural balls in Washington. Today, Biden has already announced a whole series of decisions for the first day intended to mark a break with Trump’s politics – for example, on the fight against the coronavirus, racism, and climate policy. Biden knows he has to hurry, as the pressure is on from day one.

Fortunately for him, Democrats now possess majorities in the Senate and the House. Most of Biden’s plans are thus fairly conceivable to realize. However, part of Biden’s presidency will emphasize bipartisan efforts to tackle the crises ahead. His attendance of a church service in Washington with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, including powerful Republican Senator Mitch McConnell prior to his inaugural on Wednesday morning, was a first powerful sign in this direction.

“It’s a new day in America,” wrote Biden on Twitter.

Whether unity amongst the parties is temporary or achievable remains to be seen – and the upcoming Trump impeachment trial in the Senate will be the first litmus test.

L'articolo Joe Biden Becomes the 46th President of the United States proviene da InsideOver.

With Joe Biden’s presidency, further positive progress is expected to occur in the Middle East. However, the region’s future under Biden could also get a lot worse.

This is particularly likely if a new nuclear deal with Iran and the US starts to fade and military options rise to the foreground.

A New Middle East

When Joe Biden takes office as President on Wednesday, he will hardly recognize the Middle East. When he left office four years ago, the Arab states were deeply divided, but the greatest danger was averted: a war over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Today it is the other way around, the Arab nations have arranged themselves into a fairly united power bloc, but Iran’s nuclear program is in full swing.

It raises the question of what tasks lie ahead for Biden. Moreover, any action Biden may or may not take will have far-reaching implications for the region and Europe. After all, part of the EU is now within the range of Iranian missiles, and Berlin and Paris are part of the current Iranian nuclear deal.

The shift in the Middle East is perfectly demonstrated when looking at Israel. It received three gifts from Trump during his tenure. He relocated the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Jerusalem as the capital and settlements in the West Bank, and facilitated normalization agreements between the Arab states, including Sudan, to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. As a result, Netanyahu doesn’t care much about the Palestinians now. He doesn’t have to give them anything anymore because he himself has practically everything he wants, all while Israel will now continue to grow into the supreme power in the region.

Internal Divisions Still Remain

On the other hand, the Arabs are united on the outside but are still divided internally. Ten years after the start of the Arab uprisings, the new problems are still the old ones: corruption, harassment, unemployment, a lack of prospects, a regime of fear. The end of the Emiratis and Saudis’ blockade against Qatar, the continued subsidization of Egypt by the Gulf Arabs may look like unity. But Iraqis and Saudis, Syrians and Jordanians, Emiratis and Qataris continue to distrust each other.

What brings them together is not America or Israel, but the Iranian threat.

This threat is weaker today than when Trump took office. The harsh economic sanctions have drained the country, and strengthening Israel automatically weakens Iran. But all of this comes at a high price: Iran has restarted its nuclear program and announced that it wants to enrich uranium that is suitable for nuclear weapons to 20 percent. According to the 2016 nuclear agreement, only 3.67 percent were allowed.

This is so dangerous because the step from 3.67 percent to 20 percent is the decisive one. From that level, Iran can quickly enrich itself to a level that would open the way to manufacture nuclear weapons. A law that the hardliners crammed through in Tehran also wants to limit inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In doing so, they apparently want to rule out a return to the nuclear agreement from the outset.

If Joe Biden seeks to prevent escalation, he must act very quickly after taking office to revive the nuclear agreement and bring the principle of disarmament back to the Middle East. He doesn’t have much time. The Iranians celebrate Newroz in March, after which the campaigns for the presidential election begin in June. Meanwhile, the hardliners will push the fortification forward as fast as possible.

If things go the way that Iranian radicals want only military options will be on the table by this autumn instead of a nuclear deal. Biden would then face a perilous conflict, to which Trump arguably lit the fuse.

L'articolo Joe Biden in the Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

What transpired in Washington on Wednesday was a modern-version day of infamy: Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to prevent a joint session of Congress from confirming the electoral college’s votes certifying Joe Biden as President.

After several hours of violent occupation by Trump supporters on Wednesday evening, the Capitol in Washington was declared safe again. Heavily armed police officers cleared the building and also used stun grenades and tear gas.

What Happened?

Chaotic scenes played out in the Capitol Wednesday after numerous Trump supporters made their way into the building where a joint session of Congress was getting ready to confirm the result of the presidential election in November and Joe Biden’s victory, a purely formal act.

Instead, Senators and Members of the House had to be brought to safety from an angry mob made up of extremists who call themselves patriots.

TV pictures showed how rioters smashed windows, ransacked parliamentary offices, and posed in the vacated Senate Chamber. For hours, parts of the building were in the hands of the mob. Unarmed Trump supporter Ashli Babbit sustained a gunshot wound during confrontations and died hours later.

A curfew was put into effect in Washington since 6 p.m. local time, and neighboring states also sent the National Guard and state police to the capital.

According to the police, several weapons were seized, and according to media reports, the FBI also defused at least two explosive devices.

What Caused the Riot?

The protests escalated after Trump called on his supporters during a “Stop the Steal” rally on Wednesday morning to protest against the confirmation of Congress’s election. Trump also repeated his conspiracy theory that he had been cheated out of winning the election.

When the looting started, the president tweeted, “These are things and events that happen,” claiming again that his “landslide victory” was stolen. According to Trump, his supporters were “great patriots” who have long been treated unfairly, he wrote. Previously, Trump had called on the people at the Capitol – also via Twitter – to be moderate. “Stay peaceful!” He wrote, calling on them to support the police and security forces.

After the unrest, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube took an unusually tough stance and deleted Trump’s posts in which he again disseminated his unsubstantiated claims about electoral fraud. Twitter even blocked the president’s account for the next twelve hours. In the event of further violations, the account could be blocked entirely, the company said.

The election confirmation process continued after Vice President Mike Pence condemned the events in an unusually harsh manner.

Biden: Riots Were an ‘Unprecedented Attack’

President Joe Biden spoke of an “unprecedented attack” on US democracy. The violence must end, said Biden. “Storming the Capitol, breaking windows, occupying offices, occupying the United States Senate, rummaging through the desks of the House of Representatives in the Capitol, and threatening the safety of duly elected officials is not a protest,” Biden noted. “It’s a riot.”

Wednesday’s occurrences were the culmination of four years in which President Trump tried everything to divide America, weaponize hatred against institutions and benefit off the people’s outrage.

There is simply no denying that he is greatly responsible for one of the darkest hours in America’s history. By repeatedly claiming the election was stolen, the self-proclaimed president of law and order encouraged these insurrectionists.

In terms of actions, right now, anything should and must be on the table, from impeachment and censure, to invoking the 25th Amendment and removing the president from office.

The US will only be able to revitalize its norms that have been eroded over these past four years if it holds Donald Trump accountable. Accountable for having fulfilled his promise of not accepting a peaceful transition of power and for having turned the US into a “banana republic,” as former president George W. Bush wrote in reaction to the events that unfolded.

L'articolo Under Siege: Trump Supporters Storm the Capitol proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to sign off on the latest $900 billion COVID relief bill has the stock market soaring. Ordinary Americans? Not so much, considering they will now get $600 checks instead of the $2,000 checks Trump was demanding when he said he would veto the bill.

Trump Flip-Flops on $2,000 Checks

After complaining about the bill’s chunks of money for foreign aid and various wasteful government programs, Trump eventually signed off on it. Unemployment insurance temporarily lapsed over the Christmas weekend as a result of Trump’s delay in signing the bill into law. It was already previously approved by the House and Senate.

Senator Bernie Sanders called the delay “unbelievably cruel” due to the fact that the bill contained provisions protecting people from eviction and other measures, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Trump’s waffling was a sign of incompetence and disregard for the American people. Now that the bill is law Pelosi claims it will help “the millions more struggling to stay afloat during this historic pandemic and economic crisis.”

Other Democrats sounded off even more loudly about the threatened veto, with Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia saying Trump played “Russian Roulette with American lives.”

In addition to helping pay for the $600 to most Americans, the bill reups jobless benefits, help for small businesses, airlines, farms and other industries as well as money to pay for vaccines and education budgets. The attached Omnibus spending bill will keep the government running until the end of this coming September and avoid a federal government shutdown.

Specifically, the bill also gives $100 a week extra to self-employed and regularly employed workers whose self-employment income isn’t factored into the size of their unemployment checks. The bill will give $300 extra per week to unemployed people, down from $600 extra per week that ended this summer. In terms of eviction protection it will give $25 billion in help to tenants who are facing eviction.

Why Did Trump Back Down on His Demands?

Legislation being pursued by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Sanders to get Americans more help during the pandemic typifies the converging economic populism of the Trump right and the Bernie / AOC left. Both wings were thoroughly beat down by Congress: AOC said the 5,593-page bill was too long to read and signed off anyway, while Trump said it was a “disgrace” and still backed down and signed it.

Why?

The first answer is likely simple pragmatism: in order to keep the government running and avoid an unemployment and eviction crisis right now the President and Congress passed the buck and signed off on the pork barrel-laden bill.

Trump — who is back stumping for the two Republican candidates in the upcoming Georgia runoff elections which could determine the balance of power in the Senate — seems to have been reined back into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Randian establishment GOP zone of comfort. In addition, Trump may have signed off because a potential check increase can be discussed in the future now that the bill is law, even though it’s unlikely to pass.

Similarly, Trump’s previous veto of the NDAA defense bill — that he disliked for limiting troop withdrawal options, focusing on Confederate name removal from monuments and doing little to take on the monopolistic and speech policing of Big Tech — was overridden by the House by 322 to 87 votes — handing Trump two big losses on his way out the Oval Office. As in so much of his presidency, Trump’s populism is a lot of talk without much action, blocked both by his own mercurial and erratic style of governance and the malicious economic ideologies represented by key GOP powerbrokers.

Kentucky Senator McConnell — a smooth political operator if there ever was one — is married to Elaine Chao whose family-owned Foremost Maritime Inc. has strong ties to the Communist Chinese government. The McConnells are worth over $34 million combined. Foremost received a bulky loan worth more than $417,000 as a result of The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act which was passed by Congress earlier this year in March.

McConnell said that even though the $900 billion relief bill isn’t “perfect,” it will do “an enormous amount of good for struggling Kentuckians and Americans across the country who need help now.”

Perhaps McConnell would like to trade and get just $600 while he can divide up the 400K at a local food bank in Kentucky, which has over 700,000 people living in poverty including 21% of its childhood population. More than 10% of Kentucky’s population also has no healthcare coverage.

Congressional Hypocrisy Rises to New Heights

A number of other budget hawks and Democrats who signed off on this $600 check relief bill also got major cash and loans via CARES, including Republican Representative Vern Buchanan of Florida (estimated worth $73 million) who got a $2.8 million loan for four of his companies. Republican Devin Nunes of California got $2.95 million from CARES for two wineries and farms that he has a stake in, while Democrat Earl Blumenaeur of Oregon (estimated worth $4.5 million) got $432,000 for two of his companies and Democrat T.J. Cox of California (estimated worth $11.8 million) nabbed $609,000 for two of his enterprises.

Many members of Congress have businesses and are in leadership at private firms and organizations. This is permitted under US law as long as the company is not publicly traded. Handing themselves handouts from money meant for businesses going under is the height of hypocrisy, particularly in cases such as that of Republican Carol Miller of West Virginia.

Miller works as a legal assistant to her husband car dealership chain, which got over $3 million in CARES loans even though West Virginia’s Governor Jim Justice said dealerships were essential in March, calling into question why they would need an emergency infusion of loan funding.

What Happens Now?

There is the chance of negotiating higher additional checks in the future, although the timetable means that for now most people will be getting only $600. The Democrats have a majority in the House and used it Monday to approve the CASH Act bill for $2,000 checks — and was later brought forward in the Senate for unanimous consent as Chuck Schumer has said he would do. This action has the potential to throw the GOP into disarray as well as potentially humiliate and undercut Trump. The Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and thus are in the awkward position of voting down a popular proposal that Trump had previously backed if it ever goes to vote.

Members of the party like Hawley and Representative Elise Stefanik clearly feel differently than McConnell and Co., however, with Stefanik saying that $2,000 checks are a must-do in order to address the “dire need of relief” among the American people. It remains to be seen if enough Republicans split off that the increased checks can pass.

The McConnell wing of the GOP has a deep donor list and long reach. They are not interested in handing out bigger checks or expanding into anything resembling populism. Although they are fine funding wasteful defense contracts — with rare exceptions such as Rand Paul and recent GOP defector Justin Amash — the thought of ordinary Americans having more money makes the McConnell crowd balk.

As Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama said recently: “it’s money we don’t have, we have to borrow to get and we can’t afford to pay back. Someone’s got to show me how we’re going to pay for it. How far before we all go into debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy?”

Sanders said he will object to McConnell’s attempt to override Trump’s veto on the defense bill in the Senate, which would throw a wrench and delay into proceedings and put pressure on McConnell to sign off on the $2,000 checks.

The outcome of this dramatic, chaotic and tragic transition of power and political crisis remains to be seen, as 2020 goes down in the record books as the deadliest year in American history.

L'articolo Why Did Trump Back Down on COVID Stimulus Bill? proviene da InsideOver.

Despite all justified criticism of the US government’s leadership under President Donald Trump during the crisis, Operation Warp Speed ​​is a testimony that almost anything is possible if resources are used correctly.

Quick US Progress on COVID Vaccines

The second vaccine against the coronavirus was released in the United States earlier this week. Manufacturer Moderna plans to deliver up to 20 million doses by the end of December. The US health authority FDA had already approved the vaccine on Friday.

Previously, 128,000 Americans had received their COVID vaccination approved by the US pharmaceutical company Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech.

Never before has a vaccine against a new virus been developed in such a short amount of time. This is an historic success. It is also a desperately needed one, as the number of COVID infections continues to rise rapidly.

The High Death Toll of COVID-19

Seventy-seven million people have been recorded as infected with COVID-19 worldwide and 1.7 million have died from the virus to date. The US alone now has over 319,000 COVID-19 related deaths. Every day an average of 2,000 Americans die from the effects of the virus, as many as on 9/11.

The vaccinations offer a bright spot in an otherwise brutally mismanaged crisis under the Trump administration. After all, his government launched Operation Warp Speed.

Operation Warp Speed

The project ensured that the authorities, scientists, and companies’ efforts led together to achieve the goal more smoothly than ever. Most importantly, the government allocated $14 billion into its fight for a vaccine.

For example, Moderna has received over $ 4 billion in direct research aid. Moreover, Operation Warp Speed ​​helped Pfizer and its German partner, with the US government pledging $ 2 billion in doses when the new vaccine was not yet proven effective.

Trump has never been shy about questioning scientific findings and arguably exacerbated the pandemic’s impact by downplaying the virus as merely the flu, not urging Americans to wear masks for months and holding super spreader events – most famously in the Rose Garden. However it was also Trump who ensured that a process that generally takes up to ten years and more was completed in record time.

Even Biden is Giving the Trump Administration Credit

Even President-elect Joe Biden has credited the Trump administration, saying it deserved “some credit for getting us off the ground with Operation Warp Speed.”

The fact that the pandemic broke out during his now lost battle for re-election certainly played an important role. Trump was hoping for the medical breakthrough to outshine his other failures in crisis management.

Accordingly, he reacted angrily when Pfizer published the excellent results of clinical studies only after the election date on November 3. However, selfish motivation doesn’t take away from Trump’s triumph.

A Glimmer of Hope

For the politically and socially-torn US, the pioneering act is a glimmer of hope and not only because of COVID-19. Operation Warp Speed ​​shows that Washington is still capable of great things when it matters. The allies of the superpower still trust this.

China and Russia have also developed vaccinations and started administering them earlier. However, Western industrialized nations continue to put their faith in the largely US-supported initiative. Biden can build on this basis.

Last but not least, the nation owes its success to the government employees who Trump himself so often reviled. The state apparatus that he and his supporters wanted so much to slander, and which, indeed, often appears utterly paralyzed, has provided the president with his only real success in fighting the pandemic – despite the fact that he currently negates federal employees by clinging on to his claim of an allegedly stolen election.

L'articolo Operation Warp Speed: Trump’s COVID Success proviene da InsideOver.

President-elect Joe will reportedly nominate four-star General Lloyd Austin as his Secretary of Defense. It’s a historic nomination and continues a trend Biden has set during the assemblage of his cabinet.

Biden’s Promise: a Cabinet ‘That Looks Like America’

President-elect Joe Biden had repeatedly promised a diverse cabinet “that looks like America” ​​during his election campaign.

Lloyd Austin is emblematic of Biden’s approach to diversity while also bringing all the qualities needed for the office to the table. The retired four-star Black general is set to become the new Secretary of Defense, succeeding Donald Trump’s fourth and currently acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.

Austin’s Military Background

Austin, who was born in Alabama in 1953, became best known as the US commander in Iraq, and as the first African-American to head the so-called Central Command. Austin was responsible for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria. He will be in charge of 1.2 million American soldiers and an annual budget of approximately $730 billion if he obtains Senate approval.

Biden knows Austin from his time as Vice-President in the Obama administration. At the time of Obama’s 2008 election, Austin was in command of the multinational troop coalition in Baghdad, and between 2010 and 2011, he returned to command US troops in Iraq and then oversaw the troop withdrawal. One year later, among other things, he designed strategies for combating the terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

When Austin retired, Obama praised his “character and competence,” as well as his judgment and leadership skills.

Austin, a graduate of the prestigious United States Military Academy at West Point, served in the military for 41 years until his retirement in 2016.

Austin Will be First Black Secretary of Defense

Austin’s appointment as Pentagon chief would also have meaning in terms of representation. While many Black Americans serve in the US military, the military’s top echelons are still almost entirely White. To date, there has never been a Black Secretary of Defense.

In the past few days, Black Democrats had reminded President-elect Biden of his promise to provide adequate representation. Since Biden has nominated two White Americans, Anthony Blinken, as Secretary of State and Janet Yellen, as Secretary of the Treasury, it was expected that either the defense or justice department would be filled by a person of color.

Austin Will Need to Get a Congressional Waiver in Order to Serve as Sec Def

With the Secretary of Defense office’s creation in 1947, Congress intended to place the military under civilian control. Therefore, American law requires a seven-year period between active duty and being appointed head of the Pentagon. Since Austin did not retire until 2016, he will therefore require a congressional waiver before being confirmed by the Senate.

The congressional waiver was needed only twice in the office’s history for Trump’s former Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, and General George C. Marshall, Secretary of Defense under President Harry S. Truman.

What is Austin’s Foreign Policy Outlook?

While Austin has spent an important part of his career abroad, his nomination is by no means a return towards American interventionism. The urge to withdraw from crisis and warzones is equally strong among Democrats and Republicans, even if Biden will seek to interact more harmoniously with the international community, unlike Trump.

Meanwhile, Biden’s cabinet continues to take shape a good 40 days before the inauguration on January 20, 2021. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, 62, is said to become Secretary of Health. The former congressman would be the first Latino to head the department. Biden devotes his main political focus to combating the coronavirus pandemic. Over 282,000 Americans have already died from coronavirus-related illness and coronavirus.

What remains unclear is whether or not Biden will nominate a member of the party’s progressive wing. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have repeatedly stated their desire to become part of the administration. However, both are not only unlikely to get a Senate approval – though the balance of power could potentially change with the Georgia runoff elections in January – but Biden’s nominations to date have shown his reluctance to cater towards the socialist wing of his party and a proclivity for a more moderate course.

General Llyod Austin marks not only the continuation of this approach but is the latest example of a return to normalcy and sound leadership in Washington.

L'articolo General Lloyd Austin Named as Biden’s Pick for Secretary of Defense proviene da InsideOver.

Although US President Donald Trump has still not officially conceded to his Democratic rival Joe Biden, he must use his final days in office to secure his legacy. However, the Trump administration has proven that it is not afraid to make controversial decisions regardless of the timing and Trump recently pardoned his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The Flynn Case

Flynn was convicted during a US Justice Department inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The former National Security Advisor admitted in 2017 to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia’s ambassador, but then tried to withdraw his plea.

It comes as no surprise that many Democrats jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon when this news broke, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it “an act of grave corruption and a brazen abuse of power.”

The case against Flynn did the Trump administration no favors, with Trump admitting that the former National Security Advisor lied to US Vice President Mike Pence and the FBI.

Flynn’s Case is a Judicial Slippery Slope

Last year, Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he argued, the prosecutors and FBI agents on his case had engaged in misconduct. Yet a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had sufficient evidence to investigate the former National Security Advisor as part of its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Earlier this year, Attorney General William Barr suddenly dropped all criminal charges against Flynn. The Attorney General argued that the interview in which the former National Security Advisor admitted to lying to authorities was “conducted without any legitimate basis.”

The New York Times wrote that Flynn had had the constitutional right to remain silent, but he chose not to, and this case sets a dangerous precedent for defense lawyers across the US to seek similar concessions on behalf of their clients.

The Trump Administration Still Has Arrows in its Quiver

Of course, the Trump administration could go on the offensive and defend its reasons for pardoning Flynn. Clark Neily of the Cato Institute suggests that the two FBI agents who conducted the former National Security Advisor’s interview did not think that he had been deceitful during the interview, and that any inaccurate responses to their questions were the result of a memory lapse.

Furthermore, prosecutors may have withheld favorable evidence while exerting intolerable pressure on Mr. Flynn to plead guilty to crimes which prosecutors may well have known they would be unable to prove at trial.

The case against Trump’s former advisor may prove that the US justice system is fundamentally broken, and it is understandable why the President is pardoning Flynn before Biden has his say. However, if voters want to remember the Trump administration in a positive light during its final days in office, Trump should be focusing his attention on other issues in the coming weeks.

Trump has More Pressing Matters to Worry About

Regardless of how people may feel about the pardoning of Flynn, the case has reinforced the notion of Trump’s administration being corrupt and tied to Russia, even if they do not know everything about the legalities behind the former National Security Advisor’s case.

Why Flynn kept contradicting himself remains a mystery, and we may never know the full truth behind the investigation into his links with Russia.

The former Trump advisor’s pardon is likely to have a bad impact on the Trump administration no matter what. The best decision that the US President could make right now is to concentrate on China and lifting America out of the economic impact of the coronavirus. This would help voters forget about the bad impression that Flynn’s pardon has left on the Trump administration.

L'articolo Why Did Trump Pardon Lieutenant General Michael Flynn? proviene da InsideOver.