Lily Salter's Blog, page 1022
August 12, 2015
Michele Bachmann’s creepy End Times fantasies: Why the religious right yearns for World War III
One of the creepiest aspects of contemporary American politics is the unholy alliance between the Christian right and Israel. It’s uncomfortable because the religious right’s affinity for Israel is tied to a rather disturbing fever dream: Israel’s destruction. Many evangelicals are utterly convinced that every addition to the sum of suffering in the Middle East is but a sign of the end times, of Christ’s return. They’re convinced because they interpret foreign affairs through the prism of Bronze Age biblical prophesy. Without getting bogged down in the colorful details of Christian eschatology, the story runs something like this: In order for Jesus to return and establish his Kingdom, the state of Israel must first be conquered by an invading army (preferably Persian or Arab) – because God says so. The unfortunate part (if you’re Jewish, at least) is that before Christ descends from the clouds, a holocaust of sorts must occur, resulting in the deaths of 2/3 of Israel’s people. For certain Christians, then, Israel must exist as a state (which is why they defend it so passionately), but it must also suffer immensely so that Christians can escape physical death in the form of the Rapture. This is the rather sordid truth behind the Christian right’s love affair with Israel. In a recent interview on the radio program “Understanding the Times,” Michele Bachmann articulated the raw insanity of this position with perfect clarity. Bachmann called the nuclear agreement with Iran “the most important national security event of my lifetime.” Not for geopolitical reasons, of course, but because it fulfills God’s prophesy: “All the nations of the world signed an agreement that slams the door against Israel.” Even better, she continued, the agreement prepares the way for Israel’s ruination “with the United States leading that charge.” Which apparently is also part of God’s plan, according to Bachmann's interviewer, Jan Markell, who expanded on Bachmann's observation with the following (per Right-Wing Watch):
“There are consequences to doing things like this against God’s covenant land, there are horrible consequences,” Markell said. “Then you throw in some other things such as the Supreme Court decision back in late June and a lot of other things. Judgment isn’t just coming; judgment is already here.”The prophesy to which Bachmann and Markell refer, as Scott Eric Kaufman noted earlier this month, is Zechariah 12:3, which refers to “all the nations of the earth” gathering against the state of Israel. It’s probably not worth unpacking any more of this lunacy. The broader point is that people like Bachmann (and many other Republicans) really believe this stuff. Indeed, there’s a significant subset of the GOP that advocates for Israel on purely theocratic grounds: They yearn for the apocalypse. These people fancy themselves patriots, but they’re gleefully subordinating American Foreign Policy to religious dogma in order to hasten the End Times. Said Bachmann during the same radio interview: “The prophets longed to live in this day that you and I are privileged to live in." While the former Minnesota congresswoman is uncommonly honest about her beliefs, she is certainly not alone. It’s no accident that prominent Republicans are eager to champion Israel’s interests over our own: Their religious base demands it. This madness is a political problem. At minimum, a state’s foreign policy is guided by the pursuit of self-interest. It’s true that Israel and America are allies (as they should be), but only so long as our interests align. The religious right doesn’t see the world in these terms, because they’re not interested in living peacefully on this planet. They’re drunk on otherworldly fantasies and, unfortunately, they also vote. Which is why Republicans consistently side with Netanyahu over Obama whenever there’s a legitimate conflict of interests: The base isn’t concerned with worldly things like peace and security and diplomacy – only prophesy. To the extent that people in office are animated by beliefs like this, our foreign policy will be misguided at best, suicidal at worst. Michele Bachmann is Exhibit A in the case for purging religion from politics. Anyone using the bible as a basis for contemporary foreign policy can’t be trusted with that kind of authority. Individuals are free to believe whatever they want, but the people with a grip on the levers of power aren’t – they have a worldly responsibility that requires a connection to terrestrial reality. If you’re “encouraged” by the apocalypse, as Michele Bachmann is, you’re unqualified.One of the creepiest aspects of contemporary American politics is the unholy alliance between the Christian right and Israel. It’s uncomfortable because the religious right’s affinity for Israel is tied to a rather disturbing fever dream: Israel’s destruction. Many evangelicals are utterly convinced that every addition to the sum of suffering in the Middle East is but a sign of the end times, of Christ’s return. They’re convinced because they interpret foreign affairs through the prism of Bronze Age biblical prophesy. Without getting bogged down in the colorful details of Christian eschatology, the story runs something like this: In order for Jesus to return and establish his Kingdom, the state of Israel must first be conquered by an invading army (preferably Persian or Arab) – because God says so. The unfortunate part (if you’re Jewish, at least) is that before Christ descends from the clouds, a holocaust of sorts must occur, resulting in the deaths of 2/3 of Israel’s people. For certain Christians, then, Israel must exist as a state (which is why they defend it so passionately), but it must also suffer immensely so that Christians can escape physical death in the form of the Rapture. This is the rather sordid truth behind the Christian right’s love affair with Israel. In a recent interview on the radio program “Understanding the Times,” Michele Bachmann articulated the raw insanity of this position with perfect clarity. Bachmann called the nuclear agreement with Iran “the most important national security event of my lifetime.” Not for geopolitical reasons, of course, but because it fulfills God’s prophesy: “All the nations of the world signed an agreement that slams the door against Israel.” Even better, she continued, the agreement prepares the way for Israel’s ruination “with the United States leading that charge.” Which apparently is also part of God’s plan, according to Bachmann's interviewer, Jan Markell, who expanded on Bachmann's observation with the following (per Right-Wing Watch):
“There are consequences to doing things like this against God’s covenant land, there are horrible consequences,” Markell said. “Then you throw in some other things such as the Supreme Court decision back in late June and a lot of other things. Judgment isn’t just coming; judgment is already here.”The prophesy to which Bachmann and Markell refer, as Scott Eric Kaufman noted earlier this month, is Zechariah 12:3, which refers to “all the nations of the earth” gathering against the state of Israel. It’s probably not worth unpacking any more of this lunacy. The broader point is that people like Bachmann (and many other Republicans) really believe this stuff. Indeed, there’s a significant subset of the GOP that advocates for Israel on purely theocratic grounds: They yearn for the apocalypse. These people fancy themselves patriots, but they’re gleefully subordinating American Foreign Policy to religious dogma in order to hasten the End Times. Said Bachmann during the same radio interview: “The prophets longed to live in this day that you and I are privileged to live in." While the former Minnesota congresswoman is uncommonly honest about her beliefs, she is certainly not alone. It’s no accident that prominent Republicans are eager to champion Israel’s interests over our own: Their religious base demands it. This madness is a political problem. At minimum, a state’s foreign policy is guided by the pursuit of self-interest. It’s true that Israel and America are allies (as they should be), but only so long as our interests align. The religious right doesn’t see the world in these terms, because they’re not interested in living peacefully on this planet. They’re drunk on otherworldly fantasies and, unfortunately, they also vote. Which is why Republicans consistently side with Netanyahu over Obama whenever there’s a legitimate conflict of interests: The base isn’t concerned with worldly things like peace and security and diplomacy – only prophesy. To the extent that people in office are animated by beliefs like this, our foreign policy will be misguided at best, suicidal at worst. Michele Bachmann is Exhibit A in the case for purging religion from politics. Anyone using the bible as a basis for contemporary foreign policy can’t be trusted with that kind of authority. Individuals are free to believe whatever they want, but the people with a grip on the levers of power aren’t – they have a worldly responsibility that requires a connection to terrestrial reality. If you’re “encouraged” by the apocalypse, as Michele Bachmann is, you’re unqualified.
Donald Trump is the true “bimbo”: Megyn Kelly, Fox News and a lesson in sexism
The 2016 Republican presidential race brings a lot of surprises with it. For this author, perhaps none is bigger than that he would find himself in the position to defend a blonde, female Fox News anchor against the charge raised by Donald Trump that she is a “bimbo.” Even before the Donald Trump had desperately resorted to calling the resolutely cool — and, yes, good-looking — Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” I had been toying with that very term myself in the days leading up to the debate. Quite unlike the current debate, I had been wondering whether or not to describe Trump — a man — as a bimbo. Specifically, in an effort to comprehend his appeal to larger audiences, I had been thinking about Trump as a kind of “bimbo prince.” A brief look into Wikipedia proved my instinct was right. While the bimbo term eventually, in an early form of sexist stereotyping, became largely confined to blonde women of a certain kind, this narrow usage militates not least against the generally iron laws of grammar. Notably, the word bimbo derives from the Italian word “bambino” — baby. The Italian language is known to create some new words out of contractions of longer ones. Accordingly, bimbo a masculine-gender term that means “(male) baby” or “young (male) child.” In contrast, the feminine form of the Italian word is “bimba.” This fact alone should conclusively settle the debate of Kelly as a “bimbo.” As early as 1919, in the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was mutated a bit, gaining sharper edges. It was used to describe men, initially as a mere fellow or chap, than an “unintelligent or brutish male” or as a “stupid, inconsequential man, contemptible person.” One cannot escape the realization that all these usages, from almost exactly 100 years ago, are perfect attributes to describe “The Donald.” Trump’s ultimate problem is not that he isn’t an intelligent man (in his own way). His problem is that he is certainly brutish and contemptible. He is also something of a throwback, in the style of the mucho macho moments of the “Mad Men” TV series. Trump is also bashful and tends to overshoot his rhetorical targets at liberty. In addition, he plays quite loose with the facts, although he is usually intelligent enough to quickly cover up his tracks on those persnickety facts when challenged. Mr. Trump’s real talent is one that few people have. Not only does he seem to be completely incapable of felling ashamed no matter how grotesquely he acts. The reason why he doesn’t have to worry about this is straightforward. Despite a lot of close-up camera shots being fixated right onto his maney forehead, Trump for biological reasons cannot do what most other people would do when they find themselves in a similarly embarrassing trap of self-inflicted overstatements — which is to blush. Trump, of course, cannot be counted as among the normal people, as he will be the first to admit, if not claim outright. The reason why he is physically incapable of blushing is that his face is roseated almost incessantly – and not just when he is on fire. For any person like that it is nigh impossible for any blushing to take shape. It simply cannot crack through such a layer of constant redness. Trump’s the one< For all these reasons, in any sober-minded evaluation as to who the real bimbo is in the Trump vs. Kelly race, the “bimbo” question should not even be a matter of debate. Trump’s the one. Whatever one may otherwise think of Fox News, Megyn Kelly, is certainly neither unintelligent nor brutish. Let us also use this current bimbo episode in American life to put an end to the false sexist occupation of the word bimbo. It has nothing to do with women, for purely grammatical reason to begin with. As regards Trump, we should not get our hopes too high that this will be the end of his being the main attraction in the Republican presidential race. Theoretically, one could hope that Trump, while incapable of blushing, might realize, as the saying goes, that for every index finger someone like him points at somebody else in indignation, there are at least three fingers pointing right back at the person trying to sow dissent. Unfortunately, that form of folk wisdom – and truth – is one that, for all his folksiness, simply eludes Donald Trump. One must in fact seriously doubt that he will ever learn the underlying message, bimbo that he is.
The 2016 Republican presidential race brings a lot of surprises with it. For this author, perhaps none is bigger than that he would find himself in the position to defend a blonde, female Fox News anchor against the charge raised by Donald Trump that she is a “bimbo.” Even before the Donald Trump had desperately resorted to calling the resolutely cool — and, yes, good-looking — Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” I had been toying with that very term myself in the days leading up to the debate. Quite unlike the current debate, I had been wondering whether or not to describe Trump — a man — as a bimbo. Specifically, in an effort to comprehend his appeal to larger audiences, I had been thinking about Trump as a kind of “bimbo prince.” A brief look into Wikipedia proved my instinct was right. While the bimbo term eventually, in an early form of sexist stereotyping, became largely confined to blonde women of a certain kind, this narrow usage militates not least against the generally iron laws of grammar. Notably, the word bimbo derives from the Italian word “bambino” — baby. The Italian language is known to create some new words out of contractions of longer ones. Accordingly, bimbo a masculine-gender term that means “(male) baby” or “young (male) child.” In contrast, the feminine form of the Italian word is “bimba.” This fact alone should conclusively settle the debate of Kelly as a “bimbo.” As early as 1919, in the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was mutated a bit, gaining sharper edges. It was used to describe men, initially as a mere fellow or chap, than an “unintelligent or brutish male” or as a “stupid, inconsequential man, contemptible person.” One cannot escape the realization that all these usages, from almost exactly 100 years ago, are perfect attributes to describe “The Donald.” Trump’s ultimate problem is not that he isn’t an intelligent man (in his own way). His problem is that he is certainly brutish and contemptible. He is also something of a throwback, in the style of the mucho macho moments of the “Mad Men” TV series. Trump is also bashful and tends to overshoot his rhetorical targets at liberty. In addition, he plays quite loose with the facts, although he is usually intelligent enough to quickly cover up his tracks on those persnickety facts when challenged. Mr. Trump’s real talent is one that few people have. Not only does he seem to be completely incapable of felling ashamed no matter how grotesquely he acts. The reason why he doesn’t have to worry about this is straightforward. Despite a lot of close-up camera shots being fixated right onto his maney forehead, Trump for biological reasons cannot do what most other people would do when they find themselves in a similarly embarrassing trap of self-inflicted overstatements — which is to blush. Trump, of course, cannot be counted as among the normal people, as he will be the first to admit, if not claim outright. The reason why he is physically incapable of blushing is that his face is roseated almost incessantly – and not just when he is on fire. For any person like that it is nigh impossible for any blushing to take shape. It simply cannot crack through such a layer of constant redness. Trump’s the one< For all these reasons, in any sober-minded evaluation as to who the real bimbo is in the Trump vs. Kelly race, the “bimbo” question should not even be a matter of debate. Trump’s the one. Whatever one may otherwise think of Fox News, Megyn Kelly, is certainly neither unintelligent nor brutish. Let us also use this current bimbo episode in American life to put an end to the false sexist occupation of the word bimbo. It has nothing to do with women, for purely grammatical reason to begin with. As regards Trump, we should not get our hopes too high that this will be the end of his being the main attraction in the Republican presidential race. Theoretically, one could hope that Trump, while incapable of blushing, might realize, as the saying goes, that for every index finger someone like him points at somebody else in indignation, there are at least three fingers pointing right back at the person trying to sow dissent. Unfortunately, that form of folk wisdom – and truth – is one that, for all his folksiness, simply eludes Donald Trump. One must in fact seriously doubt that he will ever learn the underlying message, bimbo that he is.
The 2016 Republican presidential race brings a lot of surprises with it. For this author, perhaps none is bigger than that he would find himself in the position to defend a blonde, female Fox News anchor against the charge raised by Donald Trump that she is a “bimbo.” Even before the Donald Trump had desperately resorted to calling the resolutely cool — and, yes, good-looking — Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” I had been toying with that very term myself in the days leading up to the debate. Quite unlike the current debate, I had been wondering whether or not to describe Trump — a man — as a bimbo. Specifically, in an effort to comprehend his appeal to larger audiences, I had been thinking about Trump as a kind of “bimbo prince.” A brief look into Wikipedia proved my instinct was right. While the bimbo term eventually, in an early form of sexist stereotyping, became largely confined to blonde women of a certain kind, this narrow usage militates not least against the generally iron laws of grammar. Notably, the word bimbo derives from the Italian word “bambino” — baby. The Italian language is known to create some new words out of contractions of longer ones. Accordingly, bimbo a masculine-gender term that means “(male) baby” or “young (male) child.” In contrast, the feminine form of the Italian word is “bimba.” This fact alone should conclusively settle the debate of Kelly as a “bimbo.” As early as 1919, in the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was mutated a bit, gaining sharper edges. It was used to describe men, initially as a mere fellow or chap, than an “unintelligent or brutish male” or as a “stupid, inconsequential man, contemptible person.” One cannot escape the realization that all these usages, from almost exactly 100 years ago, are perfect attributes to describe “The Donald.” Trump’s ultimate problem is not that he isn’t an intelligent man (in his own way). His problem is that he is certainly brutish and contemptible. He is also something of a throwback, in the style of the mucho macho moments of the “Mad Men” TV series. Trump is also bashful and tends to overshoot his rhetorical targets at liberty. In addition, he plays quite loose with the facts, although he is usually intelligent enough to quickly cover up his tracks on those persnickety facts when challenged. Mr. Trump’s real talent is one that few people have. Not only does he seem to be completely incapable of felling ashamed no matter how grotesquely he acts. The reason why he doesn’t have to worry about this is straightforward. Despite a lot of close-up camera shots being fixated right onto his maney forehead, Trump for biological reasons cannot do what most other people would do when they find themselves in a similarly embarrassing trap of self-inflicted overstatements — which is to blush. Trump, of course, cannot be counted as among the normal people, as he will be the first to admit, if not claim outright. The reason why he is physically incapable of blushing is that his face is roseated almost incessantly – and not just when he is on fire. For any person like that it is nigh impossible for any blushing to take shape. It simply cannot crack through such a layer of constant redness. Trump’s the one< For all these reasons, in any sober-minded evaluation as to who the real bimbo is in the Trump vs. Kelly race, the “bimbo” question should not even be a matter of debate. Trump’s the one. Whatever one may otherwise think of Fox News, Megyn Kelly, is certainly neither unintelligent nor brutish. Let us also use this current bimbo episode in American life to put an end to the false sexist occupation of the word bimbo. It has nothing to do with women, for purely grammatical reason to begin with. As regards Trump, we should not get our hopes too high that this will be the end of his being the main attraction in the Republican presidential race. Theoretically, one could hope that Trump, while incapable of blushing, might realize, as the saying goes, that for every index finger someone like him points at somebody else in indignation, there are at least three fingers pointing right back at the person trying to sow dissent. Unfortunately, that form of folk wisdom – and truth – is one that, for all his folksiness, simply eludes Donald Trump. One must in fact seriously doubt that he will ever learn the underlying message, bimbo that he is.
“Bratton learns from his mistakes”: How a stop-and-frisk architect became one of police reform’s most prominent faces
Outside of the tri-state area and the removed enclaves of experts on criminologists and civil liberties, Bill Bratton, the commissioner of the New York Police Department, is not a household name. Yet when the history of late 20th- and early 21st-century America is written, Bratton's name is likely to be prominently featured — especially in those sections about the country's increasingly urban nature and the rebirth of the American city. That's not to say, however, that all of the write-ups for the man who brought "broken windows" policing to New York will be in his favor. Indeed, now that white Americans are increasingly concerned about how the nation's citizens of color are treated by its police, Bratton's legacy is becoming ever-more complex. Because although his first go-round as NYPD head is remembered for controversial policies like stop-and-frisk, his second turn at the department's tiller has been characterized by him reining in the very same policies that helped make his name. That complexity and adaptability is a key feature of "Blue: The LAPD and the Battle to Redeem American Policing," a new book about Bratton by award-winning investigative journalist Joe Domanick. The book focuses on Bratton's tenure as LAPD chief, which was bookended by his former and current commissionership in New York; but Domanick is just as interested in the lessons Bratton's career may hold for the future of American policing. Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Domanick about Bratton and the book. Our conversation, which has been edited for clarity and length, can be found below. What made you want to write a book about Bill Bratton? He's been a prominent figure for quite a while but doesn't have a special reputation for charisma. I would argue he is the most significant reformer of the past 25 years. He did a lot of good things for policing and he introduced a lot of bad policing strategies, [such as stop-and-frisk], which by the way he has done yeoman-like work trying to fix. Why do you think he was willing to reverse himself on stop-and-frisk, which was one of his signature policies? I think he realized that stop-and-frisk had turned into an absolute disaster for New York City. He introduced the mass stop-and-frisk [policy] and the strong implementation of "broken windows" [policy] when he was commissioner of the New York Police Department from 1994 to 1996. At that time, I would argue, both were necessary for a city out of control; a city that was experiencing over 1,000 murders a year; a city that was just frightened. What happened was, something that I think he envisioned as temporary grew to be something permanent. You have a lot of complimentary things to say about Bratton in the book, but you're also extremely critical of stop-and-frisk. What is it about the policy — and the legacy of its implementation in New York — that you find so objectionable? We know that stop-and-frisk is a very racist technique. We know that under [ex-Commissioner] Raymond Kelly, the NYPD stopped 680,000 in 2011 — almost entirely African-American and Latino between the ages of 14 and 24. It's so invasive and it's so repressive to young black males and poor Latino youth. It has proven to be a disaster, and he brought it to Los Angeles as well. Police departments around the country have copied it, this mass use of stop-and-frisk and "broken windows." And yet he's been at the head of the NYPD during its move away from stop-and-frisk, too. I give him a lot of credit for that. It cost him a lot in energy to do that, but it was an important thing. Now [another] thing that Bratton did that is very positive is that he came to Los Angeles [after his first stint in New York]. The LAPD had historically been a very brutal, racist and unaccountable police department; and for 10 years, after the 1992 riots, LA had two police chiefs, both African-American, who failed equally spectacularly in turning the department around. But Bratton came in and really began changing the culture of the LAPD. At this point, I think a lot of readers are familiar with the broad contours of the problems within the NYPD regarding civil liberties and so forth. So can you tell me a bit about what the LAPD was like when Bratton first showed up — and what he did to "change the culture," as you put it? He said he was going to make the LAPD a more effective department in reducing crime. The LAPD, for all of its hard-charging policing, had traditionally been pretty bad at effectively reducing crime. That was one thing. The second thing was, he introduced "community policing." He ... took smart, young captains in their divisions, and because each division is different, he allowed them to innovate and start community policing, which is really working with the people, the grassroots people and the grassroots leaders [of the community]. That was very successful, and Bratton gave permission for that to happen and made sure that he found the best people to make that happen. You also write that he was willing to address — head-on — the issue of racism, which is a problem for most police departments but was especially an issue for the LAPD. Why do you think he was inclined to do that while others were not? He's a cop who despises all the cop prejudice. He took advantage of a program in Boston that allowed officers to go to college; paid tuition and everything. He took advantage of that and learned a lot because he was there with people who think like you do, or I do — not just other cops. He learned from that. I do think he's learned from his wife, Rikki Klieman, a former defense attorney from Chicago, too. The way he's presented in the book, he comes off like some with a preternatural ability to influence and manipulate institutions. Assuming you agree with that characterization, why do you think that's the case? He's a problem solver, very intelligent, thinks strategically. He's not charismatic; he is not a grandstander. I'm not saying that he doesn't know how to bullshit. (He's a master of the media. A master. The best I've ever seen.) But Bratton learns from his mistakes, and he knows how to stay two steps ahead of everybody else. Tell me more about his "mastery" of the media. At a very young age he was essentially the media [liaison] to the Boston Police Commissioner. He had to handle the media and he learned how to do it. When he was in New York, for example, he learned that when he wanted to reach policymakers and politicians, he would [use] the New York Times. When he wanted to talk to his troops — his 35,000 guys — the best way to do that was to talk to the New York Post. Also, he was a cop. He was out there on the street. He understands cops, he knows how to communicate [with them]. He knows his audience. Was he using those skills last year when trying to handle the fallout after the assassination of two NYPD? Back when cops were turning their backs to Mayor de Blasio? It struck me at that time that he was trying to thread the needle somewhat, but that he ultimately was concentrating on keeping the flareup from ruining de Blasio's tenure. Bill de Blasio was the luckiest person in the world to have Bratton as his commissioner. Bratton still has a vast reservoir of good will in the NYPD from what he did in New York [in the '90s]. He used this very skillfully to walk a tightrope. I think that [when] he stood with de Blasio, that was a very important thing during that kind of furor. [De Blasio] was able to survive that and it's behind him now. So what do you think will ultimately be Bratton's legacy? The rise of stop-and-frisk and "broken windows" in the '90s, or his temperance of both policies in the early 2010s? Or something between those two options? Bratton was very important for what I consider the first wave of American policing reform. He was the leader of the first wave, making some big mistakes along the way. "Broken windows" can conceptually and practically be a very good thing. The problem is, how do you use it? You have to use it within the concept of community policing. Bratton understands that now, and I think he's trying to emphasize these things to his officers [to stop] having them hassle some guys playing checkers in the park, etc. Now, there's a second, desperately-needed wave of [police] reform — and it's not coming from inside the police department. It's coming from African-American leaders, the Black Lives Matter [movement], and from a generation of millennials who are much more tolerant. That has to include a total commitment to community policing and really understanding that repression through stop-and-frisk has to stop.Outside of the tri-state area and the removed enclaves of experts on criminologists and civil liberties, Bill Bratton, the commissioner of the New York Police Department, is not a household name. Yet when the history of late 20th- and early 21st-century America is written, Bratton's name is likely to be prominently featured — especially in those sections about the country's increasingly urban nature and the rebirth of the American city. That's not to say, however, that all of the write-ups for the man who brought "broken windows" policing to New York will be in his favor. Indeed, now that white Americans are increasingly concerned about how the nation's citizens of color are treated by its police, Bratton's legacy is becoming ever-more complex. Because although his first go-round as NYPD head is remembered for controversial policies like stop-and-frisk, his second turn at the department's tiller has been characterized by him reining in the very same policies that helped make his name. That complexity and adaptability is a key feature of "Blue: The LAPD and the Battle to Redeem American Policing," a new book about Bratton by award-winning investigative journalist Joe Domanick. The book focuses on Bratton's tenure as LAPD chief, which was bookended by his former and current commissionership in New York; but Domanick is just as interested in the lessons Bratton's career may hold for the future of American policing. Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Domanick about Bratton and the book. Our conversation, which has been edited for clarity and length, can be found below. What made you want to write a book about Bill Bratton? He's been a prominent figure for quite a while but doesn't have a special reputation for charisma. I would argue he is the most significant reformer of the past 25 years. He did a lot of good things for policing and he introduced a lot of bad policing strategies, [such as stop-and-frisk], which by the way he has done yeoman-like work trying to fix. Why do you think he was willing to reverse himself on stop-and-frisk, which was one of his signature policies? I think he realized that stop-and-frisk had turned into an absolute disaster for New York City. He introduced the mass stop-and-frisk [policy] and the strong implementation of "broken windows" [policy] when he was commissioner of the New York Police Department from 1994 to 1996. At that time, I would argue, both were necessary for a city out of control; a city that was experiencing over 1,000 murders a year; a city that was just frightened. What happened was, something that I think he envisioned as temporary grew to be something permanent. You have a lot of complimentary things to say about Bratton in the book, but you're also extremely critical of stop-and-frisk. What is it about the policy — and the legacy of its implementation in New York — that you find so objectionable? We know that stop-and-frisk is a very racist technique. We know that under [ex-Commissioner] Raymond Kelly, the NYPD stopped 680,000 in 2011 — almost entirely African-American and Latino between the ages of 14 and 24. It's so invasive and it's so repressive to young black males and poor Latino youth. It has proven to be a disaster, and he brought it to Los Angeles as well. Police departments around the country have copied it, this mass use of stop-and-frisk and "broken windows." And yet he's been at the head of the NYPD during its move away from stop-and-frisk, too. I give him a lot of credit for that. It cost him a lot in energy to do that, but it was an important thing. Now [another] thing that Bratton did that is very positive is that he came to Los Angeles [after his first stint in New York]. The LAPD had historically been a very brutal, racist and unaccountable police department; and for 10 years, after the 1992 riots, LA had two police chiefs, both African-American, who failed equally spectacularly in turning the department around. But Bratton came in and really began changing the culture of the LAPD. At this point, I think a lot of readers are familiar with the broad contours of the problems within the NYPD regarding civil liberties and so forth. So can you tell me a bit about what the LAPD was like when Bratton first showed up — and what he did to "change the culture," as you put it? He said he was going to make the LAPD a more effective department in reducing crime. The LAPD, for all of its hard-charging policing, had traditionally been pretty bad at effectively reducing crime. That was one thing. The second thing was, he introduced "community policing." He ... took smart, young captains in their divisions, and because each division is different, he allowed them to innovate and start community policing, which is really working with the people, the grassroots people and the grassroots leaders [of the community]. That was very successful, and Bratton gave permission for that to happen and made sure that he found the best people to make that happen. You also write that he was willing to address — head-on — the issue of racism, which is a problem for most police departments but was especially an issue for the LAPD. Why do you think he was inclined to do that while others were not? He's a cop who despises all the cop prejudice. He took advantage of a program in Boston that allowed officers to go to college; paid tuition and everything. He took advantage of that and learned a lot because he was there with people who think like you do, or I do — not just other cops. He learned from that. I do think he's learned from his wife, Rikki Klieman, a former defense attorney from Chicago, too. The way he's presented in the book, he comes off like some with a preternatural ability to influence and manipulate institutions. Assuming you agree with that characterization, why do you think that's the case? He's a problem solver, very intelligent, thinks strategically. He's not charismatic; he is not a grandstander. I'm not saying that he doesn't know how to bullshit. (He's a master of the media. A master. The best I've ever seen.) But Bratton learns from his mistakes, and he knows how to stay two steps ahead of everybody else. Tell me more about his "mastery" of the media. At a very young age he was essentially the media [liaison] to the Boston Police Commissioner. He had to handle the media and he learned how to do it. When he was in New York, for example, he learned that when he wanted to reach policymakers and politicians, he would [use] the New York Times. When he wanted to talk to his troops — his 35,000 guys — the best way to do that was to talk to the New York Post. Also, he was a cop. He was out there on the street. He understands cops, he knows how to communicate [with them]. He knows his audience. Was he using those skills last year when trying to handle the fallout after the assassination of two NYPD? Back when cops were turning their backs to Mayor de Blasio? It struck me at that time that he was trying to thread the needle somewhat, but that he ultimately was concentrating on keeping the flareup from ruining de Blasio's tenure. Bill de Blasio was the luckiest person in the world to have Bratton as his commissioner. Bratton still has a vast reservoir of good will in the NYPD from what he did in New York [in the '90s]. He used this very skillfully to walk a tightrope. I think that [when] he stood with de Blasio, that was a very important thing during that kind of furor. [De Blasio] was able to survive that and it's behind him now. So what do you think will ultimately be Bratton's legacy? The rise of stop-and-frisk and "broken windows" in the '90s, or his temperance of both policies in the early 2010s? Or something between those two options? Bratton was very important for what I consider the first wave of American policing reform. He was the leader of the first wave, making some big mistakes along the way. "Broken windows" can conceptually and practically be a very good thing. The problem is, how do you use it? You have to use it within the concept of community policing. Bratton understands that now, and I think he's trying to emphasize these things to his officers [to stop] having them hassle some guys playing checkers in the park, etc. Now, there's a second, desperately-needed wave of [police] reform — and it's not coming from inside the police department. It's coming from African-American leaders, the Black Lives Matter [movement], and from a generation of millennials who are much more tolerant. That has to include a total commitment to community policing and really understanding that repression through stop-and-frisk has to stop.
John Kasich is Jeb’s worst nightmare: Why his New Hampshire gains should terrify Bush
John Kasich is one of the 16 Republican presidential candidates who was decidedly not been scared off by Jeb Bush's total lack of swagger over the past eight months. Indeed, if the pre-announcement reporting was true, watching Jeb Bush's lackluster performance over the first half of 2015 was one of the main factors prompting Kasich to jump into the race. Kasich will be gunning for the same voters that Jeb Bush will -- the moderate, establishment-friendly, not-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Already this sounds like a familiar story. Mitt Romney came into 2011 as the (perceived) candidate of moderate, establishment-friendly, n0t-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Romney's well-funded campaign also got off to a lackluster enough start in terms of "human supporters" that his targeted voters appeared poachable. The man who sought to poach those Romney voters was Jon Huntsman. Everyone in the media loved Jon Huntsman! He thumbed his nose at conservatives and, for whatever reason, centrist pundits thought that Republican primary voters would respond positively to this sort of thing. They did not. Huntsman never picked up enough velocity to compete with Romney in New Hampshire, and he was a terrible politician, and so he lost. So when Kasich entered the race on the latter end of announcement season, a lot of political writers, like yours truly, couldn't help but note the similarities to the Huntsmania that never materialized. Kasich has also hitched his wagon to the services of moderate GOP strategist John Weaver. He's perfectly willing to defy (some) conservative litmus tests. The "Morning Joe" doofuses adore him. And the frontrunner he's challenging has far greater resources than he does. Weaver took issue with the comparisons of Kasich to Huntsman, his previous presidential client. Calling it "pack journalism at its most glib and lazy" -- Hey now, that was not nearly me at my most glib and lazy, guy! -- Weaver went on to describe the differences. He went into depth about Kasich's record of conservative accomplishments... much like how he would go into depth about Huntsman's record of conservative accomplishments four years ago. He also noted that Huntsman came from wealth whereas Kasich is from a working-class background; that Huntsman was too uncomfortable in the spotlight; that Huntsman worked for President Obama while Kasich did not (this is probably the best point!); and that Kasich will have more money than Huntsman ever got from his rich daddy. We'll see how the grand Kasich experiment develops over the course of the next few months. But for now, the point goes to... John Weaver. Kasich is doing great so far. And if he continues on this trajectory much longer, Jeb Bush is in trouble. Since his announcement in late July and his strong debate performance last week, Kasich has gone from polling in the low single digits in New Hampshire to the low teens. The RealClearPolitics polling average has him neck-and-neck with Jeb Bush, behind only Donald Trump, whose campaign trajectory from here on out is... unpredictable. And Kasich's rise coincides with a leveling off, or even modest dip, in support for Jeb Bush. Certain expectations have been set for Jeb Bush. Since Iowa really isn't his style and he's not going to bother competing there, it would really be in his best interest to win the first-in-the-nation primary. If Kasich can either maintain his support there or grow it, that's going to eat directly at Jeb Bush's base of support. Some will say that losing New Hampshire would kill off Jeb Bush. I am not one of those people! He and his super PAC have more than enough money to stay in the race as long as they'd like and to trash anyone who dares approach. But how Jeb does in New Hampshire may determine the landscape of how the rest of the primary runs out. If Jeb wins it, he will probably have the same sort of bumpy, but rarely in doubt, march to the nomination that Romney had. If he loses it, then we may see a gritty, extended, and absolutely delightful battle for delegates between five or six candidates.John Kasich is one of the 16 Republican presidential candidates who was decidedly not been scared off by Jeb Bush's total lack of swagger over the past eight months. Indeed, if the pre-announcement reporting was true, watching Jeb Bush's lackluster performance over the first half of 2015 was one of the main factors prompting Kasich to jump into the race. Kasich will be gunning for the same voters that Jeb Bush will -- the moderate, establishment-friendly, not-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Already this sounds like a familiar story. Mitt Romney came into 2011 as the (perceived) candidate of moderate, establishment-friendly, n0t-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Romney's well-funded campaign also got off to a lackluster enough start in terms of "human supporters" that his targeted voters appeared poachable. The man who sought to poach those Romney voters was Jon Huntsman. Everyone in the media loved Jon Huntsman! He thumbed his nose at conservatives and, for whatever reason, centrist pundits thought that Republican primary voters would respond positively to this sort of thing. They did not. Huntsman never picked up enough velocity to compete with Romney in New Hampshire, and he was a terrible politician, and so he lost. So when Kasich entered the race on the latter end of announcement season, a lot of political writers, like yours truly, couldn't help but note the similarities to the Huntsmania that never materialized. Kasich has also hitched his wagon to the services of moderate GOP strategist John Weaver. He's perfectly willing to defy (some) conservative litmus tests. The "Morning Joe" doofuses adore him. And the frontrunner he's challenging has far greater resources than he does. Weaver took issue with the comparisons of Kasich to Huntsman, his previous presidential client. Calling it "pack journalism at its most glib and lazy" -- Hey now, that was not nearly me at my most glib and lazy, guy! -- Weaver went on to describe the differences. He went into depth about Kasich's record of conservative accomplishments... much like how he would go into depth about Huntsman's record of conservative accomplishments four years ago. He also noted that Huntsman came from wealth whereas Kasich is from a working-class background; that Huntsman was too uncomfortable in the spotlight; that Huntsman worked for President Obama while Kasich did not (this is probably the best point!); and that Kasich will have more money than Huntsman ever got from his rich daddy. We'll see how the grand Kasich experiment develops over the course of the next few months. But for now, the point goes to... John Weaver. Kasich is doing great so far. And if he continues on this trajectory much longer, Jeb Bush is in trouble. Since his announcement in late July and his strong debate performance last week, Kasich has gone from polling in the low single digits in New Hampshire to the low teens. The RealClearPolitics polling average has him neck-and-neck with Jeb Bush, behind only Donald Trump, whose campaign trajectory from here on out is... unpredictable. And Kasich's rise coincides with a leveling off, or even modest dip, in support for Jeb Bush. Certain expectations have been set for Jeb Bush. Since Iowa really isn't his style and he's not going to bother competing there, it would really be in his best interest to win the first-in-the-nation primary. If Kasich can either maintain his support there or grow it, that's going to eat directly at Jeb Bush's base of support. Some will say that losing New Hampshire would kill off Jeb Bush. I am not one of those people! He and his super PAC have more than enough money to stay in the race as long as they'd like and to trash anyone who dares approach. But how Jeb does in New Hampshire may determine the landscape of how the rest of the primary runs out. If Jeb wins it, he will probably have the same sort of bumpy, but rarely in doubt, march to the nomination that Romney had. If he loses it, then we may see a gritty, extended, and absolutely delightful battle for delegates between five or six candidates.John Kasich is one of the 16 Republican presidential candidates who was decidedly not been scared off by Jeb Bush's total lack of swagger over the past eight months. Indeed, if the pre-announcement reporting was true, watching Jeb Bush's lackluster performance over the first half of 2015 was one of the main factors prompting Kasich to jump into the race. Kasich will be gunning for the same voters that Jeb Bush will -- the moderate, establishment-friendly, not-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Already this sounds like a familiar story. Mitt Romney came into 2011 as the (perceived) candidate of moderate, establishment-friendly, n0t-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Romney's well-funded campaign also got off to a lackluster enough start in terms of "human supporters" that his targeted voters appeared poachable. The man who sought to poach those Romney voters was Jon Huntsman. Everyone in the media loved Jon Huntsman! He thumbed his nose at conservatives and, for whatever reason, centrist pundits thought that Republican primary voters would respond positively to this sort of thing. They did not. Huntsman never picked up enough velocity to compete with Romney in New Hampshire, and he was a terrible politician, and so he lost. So when Kasich entered the race on the latter end of announcement season, a lot of political writers, like yours truly, couldn't help but note the similarities to the Huntsmania that never materialized. Kasich has also hitched his wagon to the services of moderate GOP strategist John Weaver. He's perfectly willing to defy (some) conservative litmus tests. The "Morning Joe" doofuses adore him. And the frontrunner he's challenging has far greater resources than he does. Weaver took issue with the comparisons of Kasich to Huntsman, his previous presidential client. Calling it "pack journalism at its most glib and lazy" -- Hey now, that was not nearly me at my most glib and lazy, guy! -- Weaver went on to describe the differences. He went into depth about Kasich's record of conservative accomplishments... much like how he would go into depth about Huntsman's record of conservative accomplishments four years ago. He also noted that Huntsman came from wealth whereas Kasich is from a working-class background; that Huntsman was too uncomfortable in the spotlight; that Huntsman worked for President Obama while Kasich did not (this is probably the best point!); and that Kasich will have more money than Huntsman ever got from his rich daddy. We'll see how the grand Kasich experiment develops over the course of the next few months. But for now, the point goes to... John Weaver. Kasich is doing great so far. And if he continues on this trajectory much longer, Jeb Bush is in trouble. Since his announcement in late July and his strong debate performance last week, Kasich has gone from polling in the low single digits in New Hampshire to the low teens. The RealClearPolitics polling average has him neck-and-neck with Jeb Bush, behind only Donald Trump, whose campaign trajectory from here on out is... unpredictable. And Kasich's rise coincides with a leveling off, or even modest dip, in support for Jeb Bush. Certain expectations have been set for Jeb Bush. Since Iowa really isn't his style and he's not going to bother competing there, it would really be in his best interest to win the first-in-the-nation primary. If Kasich can either maintain his support there or grow it, that's going to eat directly at Jeb Bush's base of support. Some will say that losing New Hampshire would kill off Jeb Bush. I am not one of those people! He and his super PAC have more than enough money to stay in the race as long as they'd like and to trash anyone who dares approach. But how Jeb does in New Hampshire may determine the landscape of how the rest of the primary runs out. If Jeb wins it, he will probably have the same sort of bumpy, but rarely in doubt, march to the nomination that Romney had. If he loses it, then we may see a gritty, extended, and absolutely delightful battle for delegates between five or six candidates.John Kasich is one of the 16 Republican presidential candidates who was decidedly not been scared off by Jeb Bush's total lack of swagger over the past eight months. Indeed, if the pre-announcement reporting was true, watching Jeb Bush's lackluster performance over the first half of 2015 was one of the main factors prompting Kasich to jump into the race. Kasich will be gunning for the same voters that Jeb Bush will -- the moderate, establishment-friendly, not-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Already this sounds like a familiar story. Mitt Romney came into 2011 as the (perceived) candidate of moderate, establishment-friendly, n0t-a-total-jackass Republicans who have footholds in places like New Hampshire. Romney's well-funded campaign also got off to a lackluster enough start in terms of "human supporters" that his targeted voters appeared poachable. The man who sought to poach those Romney voters was Jon Huntsman. Everyone in the media loved Jon Huntsman! He thumbed his nose at conservatives and, for whatever reason, centrist pundits thought that Republican primary voters would respond positively to this sort of thing. They did not. Huntsman never picked up enough velocity to compete with Romney in New Hampshire, and he was a terrible politician, and so he lost. So when Kasich entered the race on the latter end of announcement season, a lot of political writers, like yours truly, couldn't help but note the similarities to the Huntsmania that never materialized. Kasich has also hitched his wagon to the services of moderate GOP strategist John Weaver. He's perfectly willing to defy (some) conservative litmus tests. The "Morning Joe" doofuses adore him. And the frontrunner he's challenging has far greater resources than he does. Weaver took issue with the comparisons of Kasich to Huntsman, his previous presidential client. Calling it "pack journalism at its most glib and lazy" -- Hey now, that was not nearly me at my most glib and lazy, guy! -- Weaver went on to describe the differences. He went into depth about Kasich's record of conservative accomplishments... much like how he would go into depth about Huntsman's record of conservative accomplishments four years ago. He also noted that Huntsman came from wealth whereas Kasich is from a working-class background; that Huntsman was too uncomfortable in the spotlight; that Huntsman worked for President Obama while Kasich did not (this is probably the best point!); and that Kasich will have more money than Huntsman ever got from his rich daddy. We'll see how the grand Kasich experiment develops over the course of the next few months. But for now, the point goes to... John Weaver. Kasich is doing great so far. And if he continues on this trajectory much longer, Jeb Bush is in trouble. Since his announcement in late July and his strong debate performance last week, Kasich has gone from polling in the low single digits in New Hampshire to the low teens. The RealClearPolitics polling average has him neck-and-neck with Jeb Bush, behind only Donald Trump, whose campaign trajectory from here on out is... unpredictable. And Kasich's rise coincides with a leveling off, or even modest dip, in support for Jeb Bush. Certain expectations have been set for Jeb Bush. Since Iowa really isn't his style and he's not going to bother competing there, it would really be in his best interest to win the first-in-the-nation primary. If Kasich can either maintain his support there or grow it, that's going to eat directly at Jeb Bush's base of support. Some will say that losing New Hampshire would kill off Jeb Bush. I am not one of those people! He and his super PAC have more than enough money to stay in the race as long as they'd like and to trash anyone who dares approach. But how Jeb does in New Hampshire may determine the landscape of how the rest of the primary runs out. If Jeb wins it, he will probably have the same sort of bumpy, but rarely in doubt, march to the nomination that Romney had. If he loses it, then we may see a gritty, extended, and absolutely delightful battle for delegates between five or six candidates.
America is working itself to death: How “9 to 5″ became “24/7″
Though it's a flawed feminist anthem steeped in capitalist dreams and white-collar, middle-class aspiration, Dolly Parton’s 1980 hit song "9 to 5" still plays as an ode to America’s overworked, underappreciated women workers. There’s a certain timelessness to the list of grievances Parton cites: thankless; credit-stealing bosses; underwhelming paychecks for 78 cents on every dollar made by male colleagues; killing yourself slowly to enrich corporate coffers. If there is anything that might strike today’s working women as particularly dated about the song, it is the obsolete idea that a workday might be firmly bracketed, its hours assured, secure and guaranteed. In an era in which Gallup reveals the American 40-hour workweek is actually far closer to 47 hours — nearly a day longer than it was 35 years ago, when Parton’s song was released— a bona fide 9-to-5 workday now seems almost quaint.
For women, this current culture of overwork brings a unique set of difficulties, challenges and career-success stymying issues. Sure, Parton’s song still ranks as one of the most guilty-pleasure tracks of all time, and I’m sure we all agree it should be a mandatory listing in every karaoke song selection book in this country. (I’m only half-joking, because karaoke is no joking matter.) But as for the song’s retro idea of an 8-hour workday? So much nostalgic fantasy in the wind. The reality is, Americans don’t just work more than they have in the past, they work more than most of the industrialized world. It’s not exactly breaking news that we spend more hours at the office — or on the assembly line or behind the coffee counter — than our European peers. A 2004 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found Americans work “50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians.” More recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that in 2014, Americans outworked several expected other countries, among them Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland and Austria, all countries that (coincidentally, I’m so sure) rank higher than us on the most recent World Happiness survey. The most surprising discovery of the poll, though, is that we have surpassed Japan, long stereotyped by Americans as a society far more workaholic than our own, in annual hours worked by a tally of 1,789 to 1,729. That means we’re now collectively putting in more work hours each year than the country where necessity led to the invention of the term karōshi (“death from overwork"). Yet Japan, at the very least, demands a legal minimum of 10 paid vacation days (though many employers provide more) along with 14 weeks of maternity leave. (The country has also undertaken a more aggressive effort to get new fathers to take advantage of paid paternity leave.) France famously goes even further, offering 30 days of vacation and 16 weeks of parental leave, while Scandinavian countries and Australia and New Zealand top even the French. Then there’s the United States, where workers have no legal guarantee to any amount of vacation at all — or sick days, for that matter, despite a report finding all those sick people at work ultimately cost the country $160 billion in lost productivity each year. The U.S. has the distinction of being the world’s only industrialized, not to mention rich, nation with no national legislation demanding employers offer maternity leave. And paternity leave? That’s not even part of the national discussion. Without any legal right to vacation, sick days or maternity leave, nearly a quarter of Americans work jobs that offer no paid time off, per a 2013 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The study found that part-time workers are “far less likely to have paid vacations (35 percent) than are full-timers (91 percent).” Here again, women are disproportionately affected, since studies find they outnumber men among part-timers, 61 to 56 percent. The aforementioned equation — the one in which part-time work equals no time off — only makes sense in an imagined America where part-time work schedules are as easy and convenient as the descriptor implies, with workers choosing to labor a few hours each day before spending the rest of their time doing whatever they like. But in reality, the country’s current employment rolls are filled with an unprecedented number of what the Nation identifies as “involuntary part-timers,” a majority-women workforce whose hours are kept limited by companies seeking to maximize productivity and profits while minimizing employee costs, such as those associated with providing health benefits. As the Nation article points out, the inevitable result of this practice is that “part-time is becoming the new norm for low-wage workers, together with schedules so unpredictable and varying that one can’t easily get another job, or go to school, or be a reliable parent.” For women working in what might be described as white-collar “professional” fields, technology, changing cultural expectations around work, and for the last few years, recessionary belt tightening now require they do more with less, a series of factors that has given rise to what the New York Times calls a “24/7 work culture.” The Times notes that “[t]he pressure of a round-the-clock work culture — in which people are expected to answer emails at 11pm and take cellphone calls on Sunday morning — is particularly acute in highly skilled, highly paid professional services jobs like law, finance, consulting and accounting.” Women working in these kinds of fields have always had difficulty ascending the corporate ladder, but the long-held assumption has been the problem might be ameliorated by instituting “family-friendly policies” that allow the workday to be designed for flexibility: telecommuting, unfixed hours and the like. Now research suggests that the real issue is the sheer volume of work, and work hours. Also key are cultural biases and assumptions about women and their ability to “deliver,” regardless of their level of commitment and performance, compared with male peers. At the heart of the Times piece is a Harvard Business School study titled "Gender & Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom." The study finds that “organizations — supported and reinforced by cultural beliefs about intensive mothering — may rely on the work-family narrative as an explanation for women’s blocked mobility partly because it diverts attention from the broader problem of a long-hours work culture among professionals.” That is, women’s lack of momentum is attributed to differing “choices” made by men and women, not problems with the insane expectations of employers. The study authors continue, "The readily available work-family narrative allows firms and their members to avoid this reality and the anxieties it creates by projecting the problem exclusively onto women and by projecting the image of a successful employee exclusively onto men.” Evidence for this came from those interviewed. Take a look at this quote from a male employee who seems to believe that all women are baby machines who are ill-prepared to do the heavy lifting required to excel:It’s just basic math, right? So you take 100 people. Fifty are women and 50 are men. Twenty-five of the women are going to have kids and not want to work. Twenty-five of the women are going to have kids and might want to work, but won’t want to travel every week and live the lifestyle that consulting requires of 60 or 70 hour weeks.There are an awful lot of baseless assumptions, and some specious mathematics, going on here. As the researchers themselves noted in responding to this quote, at the very least it indicates a pervasive idea that “motherhood means women are inadequate to the task and explains their relative lack of success.” And then there’s the damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t double standard for women.
Women who don’t engage in the 24/7 work culture, who cut back on hours, choosing to spend more time with family, are often denied promotions and career advancement. Conversely, those who play the game, so to speak, giving most of their lives to their jobs — and researchers found that there were plenty — are also penalized by employers who measure them against a different yardstick than their male peers. The Times points to a few quotes and their implications in elevating this point:
And though employers may put less pressure on men to demonstrate they can be great workers as well as great fathers, there’s still a hefty penalty to be paid. (For the record, the men in the study also indicated they found the unstinting hours problematic, but no one assumed they were innately incapable of handling them.) Project: Time Off’s 2013 All Work No Pay study reveals that, across gender, when workers sacrifice time with their families and loved ones for their jobs, their families and other relationships suffer. Robin Ely, one of the Harvard researchers who spoke with the Times, summed up the issue thusly:“What do I want people to worry about when they wake up first thing in the morning?” one male partner said. “For project managers, I want them to worry about the project. Women are the project manager in the home, so it is hard for them to spend the necessary time, energy and effort to be viewed here as senior leaders.”
In some cases, women were looked down on for working the hours necessary to succeed. A female associate said: “When I look at a female partner, it does leak into my thinking: How do I think she is as a mother in addition to how do I think she is as a partner? When I look at men, I don’t think about what kind of father they are.”
What’s true across the board is that both men and women workers are sleeping less and working more than in recent decades which, incidentally, means our work isn’t nearly as good as it could be. Tired brains, which science tells us inevitably result from working without reprieve for longer and longer, are less creative and inventive, and more mistake-prone. TheHarvard Business Review notes that recent studies have found downtime helps us reboot, so we can actually put our work goals in perspective. As the researchers explain, “[w]hen you work on a task continuously, it’s easy to lose focus and get lost in the weeds. In contrast, following a brief intermission, picking up where you left off forces you to take a few seconds to think globally about what you’re ultimately trying to achieve.” Study after study shows that interrupting the workday for brief intervals of “me time,” taking vacations and getting a full night’s sleep are all key to maximizing productivity. White-collar businesses with employees in high stress, high-skill positions have taken note of this, and people like Arianna Huffington — who happens to be both a woman and one of the most public workaholics of our age — proselytize about the wonders of disconnecting and “digital detoxing.” Mindfulness, as I previously wrote, has practically become a requirement by companies from Procter & Gamble to Google. Yoga is offered in offices across the country. The hope is that employees won’t just mellow out, they’ll also recharge — so they can be better workers. This is all well and good, but it still doesn’t get to the issues at the core of why women keep getting shortchanged in their careers.“These 24/7 work cultures lock gender inequality in place, because the work-family balance problem is recognized as primarily a woman’s problem. The very well-intentioned answer is to give women benefits, but it actually derails women’s careers. The culture of overwork affects everybody.”
With mainstream presidential candidates suggesting Americans should just work a little harder, legal efforts to curb our culture of overwork seem unlikely any time soon, and its particularly negative impact on women will surely continue. Which is a shame, since America’s days as a labor leader — the yesteryear those candidates often claim they pine for — was built on hard-earned laws that recognized worker importance and the need for us all to have a life. When Dolly Parton sang about working “9 to 5,” she was indicting the many flaws in the system — particularly for women — though not the very structure of the workday itself. Should we ever get an accurate, more up-to-date cover of the song (and let’s keep our fingers crossed that the music industry doesn’t stoop so low), the lyrics would need an intense overhaul. And yet, “working 11 to 11” just doesn't have as much of a ring to it.
Though it's a flawed feminist anthem steeped in capitalist dreams and white-collar, middle-class aspiration, Dolly Parton’s 1980 hit song "9 to 5" still plays as an ode to America’s overworked, underappreciated women workers. There’s a certain timelessness to the list of grievances Parton cites: thankless; credit-stealing bosses; underwhelming paychecks for 78 cents on every dollar made by male colleagues; killing yourself slowly to enrich corporate coffers. If there is anything that might strike today’s working women as particularly dated about the song, it is the obsolete idea that a workday might be firmly bracketed, its hours assured, secure and guaranteed. In an era in which Gallup reveals the American 40-hour workweek is actually far closer to 47 hours — nearly a day longer than it was 35 years ago, when Parton’s song was released— a bona fide 9-to-5 workday now seems almost quaint.
For women, this current culture of overwork brings a unique set of difficulties, challenges and career-success stymying issues. Sure, Parton’s song still ranks as one of the most guilty-pleasure tracks of all time, and I’m sure we all agree it should be a mandatory listing in every karaoke song selection book in this country. (I’m only half-joking, because karaoke is no joking matter.) But as for the song’s retro idea of an 8-hour workday? So much nostalgic fantasy in the wind. The reality is, Americans don’t just work more than they have in the past, they work more than most of the industrialized world. It’s not exactly breaking news that we spend more hours at the office — or on the assembly line or behind the coffee counter — than our European peers. A 2004 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found Americans work “50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians.” More recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that in 2014, Americans outworked several expected other countries, among them Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland and Austria, all countries that (coincidentally, I’m so sure) rank higher than us on the most recent World Happiness survey. The most surprising discovery of the poll, though, is that we have surpassed Japan, long stereotyped by Americans as a society far more workaholic than our own, in annual hours worked by a tally of 1,789 to 1,729. That means we’re now collectively putting in more work hours each year than the country where necessity led to the invention of the term karōshi (“death from overwork"). Yet Japan, at the very least, demands a legal minimum of 10 paid vacation days (though many employers provide more) along with 14 weeks of maternity leave. (The country has also undertaken a more aggressive effort to get new fathers to take advantage of paid paternity leave.) France famously goes even further, offering 30 days of vacation and 16 weeks of parental leave, while Scandinavian countries and Australia and New Zealand top even the French. Then there’s the United States, where workers have no legal guarantee to any amount of vacation at all — or sick days, for that matter, despite a report finding all those sick people at work ultimately cost the country $160 billion in lost productivity each year. The U.S. has the distinction of being the world’s only industrialized, not to mention rich, nation with no national legislation demanding employers offer maternity leave. And paternity leave? That’s not even part of the national discussion. Without any legal right to vacation, sick days or maternity leave, nearly a quarter of Americans work jobs that offer no paid time off, per a 2013 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The study found that part-time workers are “far less likely to have paid vacations (35 percent) than are full-timers (91 percent).” Here again, women are disproportionately affected, since studies find they outnumber men among part-timers, 61 to 56 percent. The aforementioned equation — the one in which part-time work equals no time off — only makes sense in an imagined America where part-time work schedules are as easy and convenient as the descriptor implies, with workers choosing to labor a few hours each day before spending the rest of their time doing whatever they like. But in reality, the country’s current employment rolls are filled with an unprecedented number of what the Nation identifies as “involuntary part-timers,” a majority-women workforce whose hours are kept limited by companies seeking to maximize productivity and profits while minimizing employee costs, such as those associated with providing health benefits. As the Nation article points out, the inevitable result of this practice is that “part-time is becoming the new norm for low-wage workers, together with schedules so unpredictable and varying that one can’t easily get another job, or go to school, or be a reliable parent.” For women working in what might be described as white-collar “professional” fields, technology, changing cultural expectations around work, and for the last few years, recessionary belt tightening now require they do more with less, a series of factors that has given rise to what the New York Times calls a “24/7 work culture.” The Times notes that “[t]he pressure of a round-the-clock work culture — in which people are expected to answer emails at 11pm and take cellphone calls on Sunday morning — is particularly acute in highly skilled, highly paid professional services jobs like law, finance, consulting and accounting.” Women working in these kinds of fields have always had difficulty ascending the corporate ladder, but the long-held assumption has been the problem might be ameliorated by instituting “family-friendly policies” that allow the workday to be designed for flexibility: telecommuting, unfixed hours and the like. Now research suggests that the real issue is the sheer volume of work, and work hours. Also key are cultural biases and assumptions about women and their ability to “deliver,” regardless of their level of commitment and performance, compared with male peers. At the heart of the Times piece is a Harvard Business School study titled "Gender & Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom." The study finds that “organizations — supported and reinforced by cultural beliefs about intensive mothering — may rely on the work-family narrative as an explanation for women’s blocked mobility partly because it diverts attention from the broader problem of a long-hours work culture among professionals.” That is, women’s lack of momentum is attributed to differing “choices” made by men and women, not problems with the insane expectations of employers. The study authors continue, "The readily available work-family narrative allows firms and their members to avoid this reality and the anxieties it creates by projecting the problem exclusively onto women and by projecting the image of a successful employee exclusively onto men.” Evidence for this came from those interviewed. Take a look at this quote from a male employee who seems to believe that all women are baby machines who are ill-prepared to do the heavy lifting required to excel:It’s just basic math, right? So you take 100 people. Fifty are women and 50 are men. Twenty-five of the women are going to have kids and not want to work. Twenty-five of the women are going to have kids and might want to work, but won’t want to travel every week and live the lifestyle that consulting requires of 60 or 70 hour weeks.There are an awful lot of baseless assumptions, and some specious mathematics, going on here. As the researchers themselves noted in responding to this quote, at the very least it indicates a pervasive idea that “motherhood means women are inadequate to the task and explains their relative lack of success.” And then there’s the damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t double standard for women.
Women who don’t engage in the 24/7 work culture, who cut back on hours, choosing to spend more time with family, are often denied promotions and career advancement. Conversely, those who play the game, so to speak, giving most of their lives to their jobs — and researchers found that there were plenty — are also penalized by employers who measure them against a different yardstick than their male peers. The Times points to a few quotes and their implications in elevating this point:
And though employers may put less pressure on men to demonstrate they can be great workers as well as great fathers, there’s still a hefty penalty to be paid. (For the record, the men in the study also indicated they found the unstinting hours problematic, but no one assumed they were innately incapable of handling them.) Project: Time Off’s 2013 All Work No Pay study reveals that, across gender, when workers sacrifice time with their families and loved ones for their jobs, their families and other relationships suffer. Robin Ely, one of the Harvard researchers who spoke with the Times, summed up the issue thusly:“What do I want people to worry about when they wake up first thing in the morning?” one male partner said. “For project managers, I want them to worry about the project. Women are the project manager in the home, so it is hard for them to spend the necessary time, energy and effort to be viewed here as senior leaders.”
In some cases, women were looked down on for working the hours necessary to succeed. A female associate said: “When I look at a female partner, it does leak into my thinking: How do I think she is as a mother in addition to how do I think she is as a partner? When I look at men, I don’t think about what kind of father they are.”
What’s true across the board is that both men and women workers are sleeping less and working more than in recent decades which, incidentally, means our work isn’t nearly as good as it could be. Tired brains, which science tells us inevitably result from working without reprieve for longer and longer, are less creative and inventive, and more mistake-prone. TheHarvard Business Review notes that recent studies have found downtime helps us reboot, so we can actually put our work goals in perspective. As the researchers explain, “[w]hen you work on a task continuously, it’s easy to lose focus and get lost in the weeds. In contrast, following a brief intermission, picking up where you left off forces you to take a few seconds to think globally about what you’re ultimately trying to achieve.” Study after study shows that interrupting the workday for brief intervals of “me time,” taking vacations and getting a full night’s sleep are all key to maximizing productivity. White-collar businesses with employees in high stress, high-skill positions have taken note of this, and people like Arianna Huffington — who happens to be both a woman and one of the most public workaholics of our age — proselytize about the wonders of disconnecting and “digital detoxing.” Mindfulness, as I previously wrote, has practically become a requirement by companies from Procter & Gamble to Google. Yoga is offered in offices across the country. The hope is that employees won’t just mellow out, they’ll also recharge — so they can be better workers. This is all well and good, but it still doesn’t get to the issues at the core of why women keep getting shortchanged in their careers.“These 24/7 work cultures lock gender inequality in place, because the work-family balance problem is recognized as primarily a woman’s problem. The very well-intentioned answer is to give women benefits, but it actually derails women’s careers. The culture of overwork affects everybody.”
With mainstream presidential candidates suggesting Americans should just work a little harder, legal efforts to curb our culture of overwork seem unlikely any time soon, and its particularly negative impact on women will surely continue. Which is a shame, since America’s days as a labor leader — the yesteryear those candidates often claim they pine for — was built on hard-earned laws that recognized worker importance and the need for us all to have a life. When Dolly Parton sang about working “9 to 5,” she was indicting the many flaws in the system — particularly for women — though not the very structure of the workday itself. Should we ever get an accurate, more up-to-date cover of the song (and let’s keep our fingers crossed that the music industry doesn’t stoop so low), the lyrics would need an intense overhaul. And yet, “working 11 to 11” just doesn't have as much of a ring to it.
Ferguson’s dark, twisted lesson: What police crackdowns & “Oath Keepers” reveal on the anniversary of a tragedy
On Friday, the 363rd day after the killing of Michael Brown, Jr., I visited his memorial in the Canfield neighborhood of Ferguson, Mo., where his bullet-riddled body lay for four and a half hours last August 9. Having spent the day speaking at and in participating in a conference at a local church about the role of scholarship and the church in the Movement for Black Lives, I had not readied myself to encounter Canfield for the second time. But as my comrades and I got out of the car, and peered a few feet away at Mike Brown’s memorial, lined with teddy bears and marked on either end by two orange traffic cones, the devastation settled into my stomach yet again. The tears started dripping faster than I could catch them. I may never understand why the story of this kid pulls at my heartstrings the way it does. None of us may ever understand. The vast majority of local activists who have spent their year staring down police officers, taking milk baths to treat tear gas, being arrested, and advocating for change in their community never knew Michael Brown. But he is family. His fate is linked to ours. If it could happen to him, it could happen to any of us. Over the weekend, the public memorials and remembrances for Mike remained peaceful until Sunday evening when some unknown group of people began shooting, seemingly in a conflict unrelated to the protests. Police also claim that one of Michael Brown’s classmates, an 18 year old young man named Tyrone Harris, opened fire on four police officers in plain clothes, necessitating that they shoot him. He remains in critical condition. I remain dubious of their account of events. These incidents allegedly incited the police to once again bring out their riot gear, their armored vehicles and their tear gas, which they used on protestors lining the streets on West Florissant and Canfield Drive. Thus, the last few days have become an eerie repeat of how we spent August 2014, following Twitter for news reports of the terrible violence and fear gripping people in St. Louis. Mainstream media coverage has stayed true to form, offering accounts of police who have been forced into violence because of violent, angry protestors. On both Sunday and Monday, I spent the day checking in with local activists and other friends and supporters who have become family over the last 12 months. From them I heard a different story, about police giving orders to disperse while flanking protestors in on both sides making it nearly impossible for them to leave. I watched video that a good friend recorded hastily in retreat, where I heard the sounds of Black people running from police, screaming in distress, trying to avoid tear gas canisters, trying to make sure they made it out with everyone they came with. This is what state violence against peaceful protestors looks like. And the broad masses of the American populace have not yet become discontent enough with these violations of the rights of American citizens to rise up and do anything about it. Too many people are content to dismiss these protests as the acts of angry, illogical, and violent youth. Someone once told me that the root of all anger is fear. I’m not big on sweeping platitudes, but there is a visceral fear that animates the anger of those of us pushing our country to change. We fear for our lives. We fear for the lives of those we love. And we have been told, in every way possible, that our lives are not worthy of care or protection. We have every right to be afraid. We have every right to be angry. Our country wants us to fear it. On Monday evening, five armed white men, a militia group calling themselves the “Oath Keepers,” showed up to the Ferguson protests declaring their intent to keep the streets safe. Described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a fiercely antigovernment, militaristic group, these militia men claimed to be there to protect the protestors. But here is the question: How is it that five white men with assault weapons and military fatigues can arrive and patrol police officers and leave without being arrested, tear gassed, or killed? How is it that armed white men can openly patrol streets but unarmed Black people keep ending up dead? How is it that armed white men are not seen by law enforcement as a threat? Yes, the police chief called them “unnecessary and inflammatory,” but this is qualitatively different than viewing them as an active and dangerous threat. Yet the throwing of water bottles by protestors is a “threat” frequently met with tear gas. There is no universe in which a group of Black men dressed in fatigues and armed with assault weapons could show up to patrol the police and protect protestors without swift and significant reprisal. This week’s crude repetition of events that horrified us last August are a cautionary tale in what happens when America refuses to learn the lessons of the past. For the last year, I have been thinking through how white people have arrived at this particular moment, a moment where Black people are being slaughtered with impunity while white Americans pretend that things are fine. When I was a teenager, I remember being a part of a multiracial generation of youth who looked with horror upon the sins of white people in the early and mid-20th century. My white friends often spoke of their grandparents and even their parents’ racism and seemed not to want to repeat those mistakes. In fact, frequently, they did not understand how white people in the past had engaged in such atrocities. Back then, even I did not believe that we could turn back time. I did not believe state-sanctioned lynchings would still occur. Lynchings and denials of civil rights were so clearly inhumane. But I am struck by the fact that many of the police officers and vigilantes, who have killed Mike Brown and Sam DuBose and Walter Scott and the Charleston 9, are younger than I am. They were born in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Michael Brown’s mother is my age. And here we are again in an era of lynchings and the systematic denial of civil rights. What kind of forgetting makes that possible? What kinds of things do you have to believe about yourself to see one group subjected to heinous acts of state violence and conclude that they did something to deserve it? How are you any different, then, than the people who raised you? Back at Mike Brown’s memorial, I cried, in part, because it had been one full year later, and the memorial was still there. The objects of tribute had changed. Regularly, the memorial is dismantled. But members of the community keep coming back. They keep choosing to remember. They keep choosing to bring an offering. The place where Mike Brown’s body lay is holy ground. I have not forgotten. But I went back because I needed to remember. Forgetting makes such atrocity possible. Forgetting will cause you to retread the same ground again and again. White people’s willful forgetting of their long history of violent, anti-black racial atrocity dooms them to repeat the harms of the past. For Black people that means our salvation is in remembering. Remembering what white people are capable of. Remembering how much our country does not love us. Remembering our slain. Remembering that their broken bodies and their spilled blood compel us to keep on fighting.
Jeb’s Iraq revisionism: His idiot brother wrecked the place, but it’s all Obama’s fault
With the Donald Trump show still sucking up media and voter attention, other Republican candidates are searching for ways to break through the noise and make their presences felt. Some are attacking Trump directly to try and snag a slice of his spotlight, while others are carving out extreme positions on social issues. Jeb Bush, who slouched his way through last week’s debate, is trying to refocus attention on foreign policy with a big speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Jeb's had a rough go of it when it comes to foreign policy. After spending several days earlier this spring giving contradictory and evasive answers to the question of whether he would have authorized the Iraq invasion, Jeb was beseeched by his brother’s neoconservative pals to get his act together and start blaming Obama for everything bad that happened in Iraq. Jeb listened to their advice, and in last night’s speech he expanded the circle of blame to include Hillary Clinton:
So why was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq, leaving not even the residual force that commanders and the joint chiefs knew was necessary? That premature withdrawal was the fatal error, creating the void that ISIS moved in to fill – and that Iran has exploited to the full as well. ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat. And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge…then joined in claiming credit for its success … then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away.There’s nothing here we haven’t heard from Jeb before. Back in February he gave another big foreign policy speech, and in the question-and-answer session that followed he heartily embraced this idea that Iraq was “won” by the time Obama came into office. After deploying the passive-voice to gloss over all the grisly chaos his brother visited on Iraq – “There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure” – Jeb offered a spirited hosanna in praise of the surge:
But my brother’s administration, through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage, politically, that any president’s done, because there was no support for it. It was hugely successful and it created a stability that, when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more stable situation that would not have allowed for the void to be filled. The void has been filled because we created the void.The Republican foreign policy platform of the post-George W. Bush era is built around this idea that we actually won the Iraq war before Obama came in and lost it. It’s a fabrication, and it was concocted by the same people who dreamed up the invasion in the first place so that they could dodge ownership of the disaster they created. It’s a fiction that gives false comfort to those who believe against all evidence that the United States can reshape the world through military power – a notion that almost every Republican presidential candidate subscribes to. Peter Beinart wrote the most recent debunking of the idea that the surge “succeeded” for the latest issue of The Atlantic, making the critical point that the reduction in violence that conservatives and Republicans boast about today was not its primary goal:
The United States military bribed, cajoled, and bludgeoned Iraqis into multiple cease-fires. The Iraqi state was still broken; its new ruling elite showed little of the political magnanimity necessary to reconstruct it in an inclusive fashion. And the Band-Aids that Petraeus and his troops had courageously affixed began peeling off almost immediately.This point can’t be made enough: the surge was not meant to just tamp down violence. It was supposed to provide Iraqi leaders the space and security they needed to achieve political reconciliation. The exact opposite happened: then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki exploited the lull in violence to consolidate power and crack down on his political and sectarian rivals. If you argue that the surge was a “success,” you’re saying that the government we installed in Iraq was stable, healthy, and up to the task of running the country. That obviously was not the case. Jeb was a full-throated supporter of the Iraq war, and he can’t really distance himself from it given that the strategic calamity of the Iraq invasion is, for him, a family heirloom. But by rewriting a bit of history and retroactively shifting a few goalposts, he can once again preach the virtues of the Bush Doctrine while chiding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for losing the war his brother “won.” Thus we’re left with a surreal and infuriating situation in which a member of the Bush family is accusing someone else of refusing to take ownership of our failed Iraq policy.With the Donald Trump show still sucking up media and voter attention, other Republican candidates are searching for ways to break through the noise and make their presences felt. Some are attacking Trump directly to try and snag a slice of his spotlight, while others are carving out extreme positions on social issues. Jeb Bush, who slouched his way through last week’s debate, is trying to refocus attention on foreign policy with a big speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Jeb's had a rough go of it when it comes to foreign policy. After spending several days earlier this spring giving contradictory and evasive answers to the question of whether he would have authorized the Iraq invasion, Jeb was beseeched by his brother’s neoconservative pals to get his act together and start blaming Obama for everything bad that happened in Iraq. Jeb listened to their advice, and in last night’s speech he expanded the circle of blame to include Hillary Clinton:
So why was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq, leaving not even the residual force that commanders and the joint chiefs knew was necessary? That premature withdrawal was the fatal error, creating the void that ISIS moved in to fill – and that Iran has exploited to the full as well. ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat. And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge…then joined in claiming credit for its success … then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away.There’s nothing here we haven’t heard from Jeb before. Back in February he gave another big foreign policy speech, and in the question-and-answer session that followed he heartily embraced this idea that Iraq was “won” by the time Obama came into office. After deploying the passive-voice to gloss over all the grisly chaos his brother visited on Iraq – “There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure” – Jeb offered a spirited hosanna in praise of the surge:
But my brother’s administration, through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage, politically, that any president’s done, because there was no support for it. It was hugely successful and it created a stability that, when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more stable situation that would not have allowed for the void to be filled. The void has been filled because we created the void.The Republican foreign policy platform of the post-George W. Bush era is built around this idea that we actually won the Iraq war before Obama came in and lost it. It’s a fabrication, and it was concocted by the same people who dreamed up the invasion in the first place so that they could dodge ownership of the disaster they created. It’s a fiction that gives false comfort to those who believe against all evidence that the United States can reshape the world through military power – a notion that almost every Republican presidential candidate subscribes to. Peter Beinart wrote the most recent debunking of the idea that the surge “succeeded” for the latest issue of The Atlantic, making the critical point that the reduction in violence that conservatives and Republicans boast about today was not its primary goal:
The United States military bribed, cajoled, and bludgeoned Iraqis into multiple cease-fires. The Iraqi state was still broken; its new ruling elite showed little of the political magnanimity necessary to reconstruct it in an inclusive fashion. And the Band-Aids that Petraeus and his troops had courageously affixed began peeling off almost immediately.This point can’t be made enough: the surge was not meant to just tamp down violence. It was supposed to provide Iraqi leaders the space and security they needed to achieve political reconciliation. The exact opposite happened: then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki exploited the lull in violence to consolidate power and crack down on his political and sectarian rivals. If you argue that the surge was a “success,” you’re saying that the government we installed in Iraq was stable, healthy, and up to the task of running the country. That obviously was not the case. Jeb was a full-throated supporter of the Iraq war, and he can’t really distance himself from it given that the strategic calamity of the Iraq invasion is, for him, a family heirloom. But by rewriting a bit of history and retroactively shifting a few goalposts, he can once again preach the virtues of the Bush Doctrine while chiding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for losing the war his brother “won.” Thus we’re left with a surreal and infuriating situation in which a member of the Bush family is accusing someone else of refusing to take ownership of our failed Iraq policy.
The GOP’s real Donald Trump problem: They’ve created a monster that they don’t know how to control
It's inescapable that the GOP has a Donald Trump problem—though some now have reason to hope that Trump himself may start to fade, if not tumble, in the wake of his spat with Megyn Kelly, a typically operatic bit of reality TV. (Having Erick Erickson, whom Kelly has excoriated for his sexism, come to her aid in the aftermath must surely have given Kelly an added laugh, and given us all reason to wish the contest were more in mode of "Survivor.") But even if Trump were to magically disappear overnight, that would only end the most obvious, and superficial, aspect of the GOP's Trump problem, which is not Trump himself -- what he is, says and does -- so much as it's the GOP's necrotic, post-autopsy condition that called him forth, like a demon summoned from the underworld. Trump himself may or may not stay around—he could even run as an independent—but the GOP's real Trump problem, call it the “deep Trump problem,” is what his emergence says about the party's pathetic weakness, both as an institution, and as reflected in its presidential field (underscored again in the Fox debate). It's the problem behind the problem that the GOP's post-2012 autopsy was supposed to solve. The party has long thrived on the power of comforting (and threat-managing) conservative narratives, backed by massive cash flows, with little regard—if not outright disdain—for how the narratives relate to reality. But the institutional power to pull this trick off is no longer the equal of the irrational powers it has successfully summoned for so long. There is no master sorcerer in charge, and the sorcerer's apprentice is in way over his head. Take Trump out of the GOP presidential race—as so many establishment types hope or expect to happen—and what do you have left? No one who looks really promising, which is why Trump could make such a big splash in the first place. Bush was always even more problematic as the Establishment candidate than Romney had been—Romney averaged around 20 percent or more for three years before the primaries began, Bush averaged less than 15 percent the last two years—and his debate performance was typically flat, devoid of distinction. He did falsely claim, “our economy grew at double the rate of the nation,” when the real difference was far more modest: Florida's per-capita GDP grew 19.8 percent over Bush's two terms (2.5 percent per year), compared to 16.4 percent nationwide (2.1 percent annually), and was due to a housing bubble, which later went bust. But why would anyone even notice? As for the supposed debate winners—Rubio, Kasich and Fiorina (in the under-card)—they all have profound problems of their own, under-scrutinized so far, because of their poor standings. The already-struggling Rubio, who actually advertised his lack of a résumé, has been decimated by Trump's rise, dropping more than 50 percent since Trump entered the race in five-poll rolling averages, more than Huckabee or Carson, and more than double Scott Walker. Kasich, although long on résumé, has nothing outstanding to point to (Ohio job growth is subpar, for example). And then there's failed businesswoman (and failed Senate candidate) Carly “Demon Sheep” Fiorina. The fact that candidates like these are getting buzz only underscores how pathetic the party is, and how far its infatuation with campaign rhetoric has gotten divorced from reality. In the GOP's deluded imagination, Fiorina “proves” that the party's war on women is a myth—pay no attention to the latest lie-based crusade to destroy Planned Parenthood. In the real world, the fact that Fiorina's presidential bid is taken seriously after losing a Senate bid by 10 points proves just the opposite: how desperate for cover the misogynist GOP is, and how shamelessly they practice the very promotion of “unqualified women and minorities” (see Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Alan Keyes) that they claim to abhor. This large, but unpromising field is really no surprise, however. It's just what you should expect when big money and ideological powerhouses essentially eclipse the traditional party structure. The centrifugal process has been underway for decades, but now it's reached a crisis—witness the GOP's inability to act on their own 2012 autopsy, which we'll return to below. Conservatives' Latest Psycho-dynamic Turn The result of this process is both messy and complex, though Joan Walsh and Chauncey DeVega were both onto something highly significant calling attention to a disturbing new right-wing meme for attacking—other conservatives! First, Walsh explained:
The spread of the epithet “cuckservative” is a sign that the crudest psycho-sexual insecurity animates the far right. “Cuckservative,” you see, is short for a cuckolded conservative. It’s not about a Republican whose wife is cheating on him, but one whose country is being taken away from him, and who’s too cowardly to do anything about it. OK, that’s gross and sexist enough already, but there’s more. It apparently comes from a kind of pornography known as “cuck,” in which a white husband, either in shame or lust, watches his wife be taken by a black man.Then DeVega added an extensive examination of historical roots and psychological resonances involved, adding the crucial point that there's something other than traditional interracial cuckolding involved:
No, this camp of aggrieved and imperiled white men, drunk on toxic white masculinity, are terrified of their supposed status as “victims” in a more inclusive and cosmopolitan 21st century America. Whereas cuckolding has its foundations in eroticism, the term “cuckservative” has evolved from a related, but ultimately very different, psychosexual fixation: racialized castration anxieties.... The legacy of the South’s planter class — the 1 percent [of] its time, who profited from the blood of the slave plantations, work camps, tenant labor, sharecropping fields, and chain gangs — is also seen in the contemporary Republican Party. When the Republican Party’s leaders and media elites talk about “makers and takers” and “lazy” American workers, when they wage war on the poor and the social safety net, what we’re seeing is the new political economy of neoliberalism mated with the philosophical legacy of the planter class.An Institutional Historical Framework The insights I've barely sampled are crucial for understanding the GOP's psycho-dynamics, which increasingly drive a party long out of touch with empirical reality. But if we want a better empirical grasp of what's happening with them, we need to look to institutional histories as well. Two books are particularly helpful in this regard. The first is "Democracy Heading South: National Politics in the Shadow of Dixie" by Augustus B. Cochran III, the second is "Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Cochran's thesis was that the U.S. in 2000 was strikingly similar to the South in 1950 as described in V.O. Key’s classic work, "Southern Politics in State and Nation," as I recently described here at Salon, as an aid to understanding Bill Clinton's politics:
Cochran argued that the structures were different, but the functions were the same, like the relationship between gills and lungs. “Key argued that because Southern politics lacked strong, responsive parties, was based on a narrow electorate, and was designed to perpetuate white supremacy, Southern electoral institutions lacked the coherence, continuity, and accountability that could make Southern politics rational and democratic,” Cochran noted. And he argued that just as these factors hobbled the South’s ability to become an industrial democracy, a parallel set of constraints were crippling America’s ability to become a postindustrial democracy.Cochran also pointed out that Southern politics was a prime form of entertainment. Southern politicians were much better at telling stories than they were at building (much less fixing) roads. Many of the institutions today are different, but the functions are similar. Most notably, the one-party system functioning as a money-and-media, elite-serving no-party system has been replaced by a gridlocked, two-party system functioning as a money-and-media, elite-serving no-party system. While most of U.S. history has seen one party or another dominate Congress and the White House for periods of roughly 36 years, the 1968 election began a long period of dealigned government, in which divided government was the rule. And this is the system under which—as I noted here recently—the bottom 90 percent lost 12.45 percent in average income between 1973 and 2008, while the top 1 percent gained 3.51 percent per year. That's why it makes a lot of sense to regard it as a period of de facto one-party rule. But there's more to the story. In "Off Center," Hacker and Pierson had a similar view of democratic dysfunction. "[T]hanks to personality-focused elections, run through a news media that provides increasingly little in the way of substantive information, most voters find it hard even to learn the basics. Political elites know this well," they wrote. But Hacker and Pierson focused on how GOP operatives had gamed this system in a particular, highly coordinated way, closer to an old Southern oligarchic clique, as Cochran might have argued, than to a traditional political party. With redistricting narrowing the number of competitive seats in Congress, powerful, well-financed ideological groups gained substantially greater leverage—no reason for GOP candidates to seek out the center to win general elections, the only threat they faced was from the right. Together, these two books help us understand how America's political institutions have been hijacked by elites in general on the one hand, and by well-organized ideological extremists on the other. Standing at the intersection of these two forces are figures like the Koch brothers, who spent decades laying the foundations for the Tea Party, and a growing number of other billionaire mega-donors given unprecedented political power via the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. But now, the fact that just one such mega-donor can keep a candidate alive indefinitely is just one facet of how different the current political environment is—with or without Donald Trump. Inadvertently, it seems, self-satisfied elites have let loose centrifugal forces far more powerful than they can control. To really understand what's happening with the GOP now, we have to combine this institutional framework with social psycho-dynamics that Walsh and DeVega pointed out, which have a powerful centrifugal force of their own. Not surprisingly, there's strong opposition to connecting these two realms, often expressed in common political narratives. When Rush Limbaugh inveighs against GOP elites, for example, he's masking the fact that he owes his entire career to them. In 1987, Reagan's FCC chair, Dennis R. Patrick, eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, which opened the doors for the creation of right-wing talk radio. No need for balance, no need to serve the public interest. Also, no possibility of a true left-wing counterpart, for at least two major reasons: First, the money from (elite!) advertisers would never flow so freely, and second, the affect-oriented, demonizing rhetoric that's Limbaugh's stock in trade has no comparable left-wing equivalent. Lest anyone doubt Limbaugh's importance, let's remember how Gingrich had him give a pep talk to GOP Congress members after winning control of Congress in 1994. And to clarity his function, David Niewert's award-winning analysis, “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism,” explained (among many other things) Limbaugh's role as a transmitter of hard right ideas, attitudes, myths and fixations into the broader conservative mainstream. One must also understand Limbaugh's anti-elitism—much like Trump's—as a posture typical of elite-serving fascism, long seen in America in an ideological orientation known as “producerism.” This posture situates middle classes as subject to attacks on two fronts—from elites above, and “parasites” below. In practice, the “parasites” are hated for who they are, elites for what they do—when they do anything that might help the parasites. Thus, Trump the billionaire who calls Mexicans “rapists” is automatically excused: He's not an elite, he's magically “one of us.” This is the key nexus of how “social issues” and economic issues interact: “right-wing populists” are only anti-elitist in this narrowly manipulable sense, and “social issues” only matter as a way to stigmatize those who can be looked down on. And who is better at looking down at people than Donald Trump? It's arguably the most central aspect of his character. It's also the very essence of today's GOP. The Problem Behind the Problem Earlier, I referred to the GOP's deep Trump problem as “the problem behind the problem that the GOP's post-2012 autopsy was supposed to solve.” It's time to unpack what that means. In the autopsy's very first section, the “Introduction to Messaging,” it said:
The GOP today is a tale of two parties. One of them, the gubernatorial wing, is growing and successful. The other, the federal wing, is increasingly marginalizing itself... Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. States in which our presidential candidates used to win, such as New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida, are increasingly voting Democratic. We are losing in too many places.So the document's entire thrust can be seen as an extended effort to remake the national GOP in the model of its governors—governors who, by the very nature of the job, are generally much more pragmatically oriented (though many also win in off-year elections, with much smaller, more right-leaning electorates). As soon as it was released, Joan Walsh noted it was hard to see an organized constituency for the advised changes, “while there’s plenty of party opposition,” pointing directly at two prominent representatives:
“Let’s be clear about one thing, we’re not here to rebrand a party,” Sarah Palin declared [at CPAC] Saturday. “We’re here to rebuild a country.” Rush Limbaugh has already declared war on Priebus and his makeover plans. “The Republicans are just getting totally bamboozled right now,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “The Republican Party lost because it’s not conservative, it didn’t get its base out.” People say they need to moderate their tone — they don’t.” He dismissed Priebus’ project as designed to soothe the party’s “donor base.”Limbaugh was right about one thing: The “donor base” is why the GOP's done so much better with governors. There's a variety of reasons for that, not least the fact that states are smaller entities, where it's easier for donors to coordinate their efforts, and it's more immediately in their interest not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But Walsh also ended her piece saying, “His autopsy won’t make sense until Republicans realize their party is dead as a national entity at least in its current paranoid, polarizing incarnation.” And here's the twist: Nationally—as pointed out above—the GOP's donor base has spent decades creating that very same “paranoid, polarizing incarnation.” It's their formula, nobody else's. Certainly not Donald Trump. He is, as he claims, just a player. He didn't invent the game, which is why all attempts to use a “base vs. donor” model—rather than a synergistic “base and donor” model—are bound to miss what's most significant here, the heart of what the GOP's deep Trump problem is all about. It's the myopic fecklessness of today's conservative elites that's the real story here. That's the GOP's real deep Donald Trump problem. They're way bigger clowns than he ever dreamed of being.
The counterintuitive secret to weight loss Coca-Cola doesn’t want you to know
Don’t stress too much about cutting calories if you want to shed pounds—focus on getting more exercise. That’s the controversial message beverage giant Coca-Cola is backing in its new campaign to curb obesity. Coke is pushing this idea via a new Coke-backed nonprofit called Global Energy Balance Network, The New York Times reported on August 9. Money from Coke, the Times reported, is also financing studies that support the notion that exercise trumps diet. But is there any merit to such a stance? Not much, says Rutgers University–based diet and behavior expert Charlotte Markey. She is the author of an upcoming cover story in
Scientific American MIND
on this topic, and spoke about the Coke claims withScientific American on Monday. [An edited transcript of the interview follows.] In your fall Scientific American MIND feature you write “study after study shows that working out is not terribly effective for weight loss on its own.” Why is that? Exercise increases appetite, and most people just make up for whatever they exercised off. There’s a lot of wonderful reasons to exercise and I always suggest it to people who are trying to lose weight—some sort of exercise regimen keeps them focused on their health and doing what is good for them, and it’s psychologically healthy. But in and of itself it won’t usually help people lose weight. Two years ago there was a review study in Frontiers in Psychology that concluded dieting often actually led to weight gain. Why would that happen? When people try to diet, they try to restrict themselves, which often leads to overeating. They cut out food groups which make those food groups more desirable to them. They think too much about short-term goals and don’t think about sustainable changes. But if you are going to lose weight, you have to change your behaviors for the rest of your life or otherwise you gain it back. That’s not a sexy message because it seems daunting. Coke’s message is don’t worry so much about dieting but worry a bit more about exercise. Is there something to that then? I find everything going on here very troubling. In the promotional video from Coke’s group, linked to by the NYT, exercise scientist Steve Blair says we don’t know what is causing obesity and we need more research. That message is oversimplified and terribly misleading. We actually know a great deal about what leads to obesity. It’s not a great mystery. People are eating too much and not exercising enough…that makes it inevitable that people will be obese. The group’s emphasis on physical activity is misleading based on what the data shows. There’s no data to support saying if you exercise for 30 minutes three times a week that this will take care of the problem. We have data refuting that. In reality, we need people to stop drinking sugary beverages like soda. Soda is the one consumable beverage that is repeatedly cited as having the biggest impact on obesity rates. From a public health standpoint, we want soda out of schools and we want cities to really decrease intake of soda—and Coca-Cola knows this and knows they are being proactive and defensive against taxes on soda and other limitations. What does a sustainable weight loss regime look like? It looks like making regular, sustainable dietary changes. It does not have to be a complete revamp of someone’s way of eating since that is not typically sustainable. But, in most cases, it has to involve dropping 300 or more calories per day; that can be done by dropping a couple sodas per day. People have to commit to this and prepare themselves—weight loss is a marathon and not a sprint. Exercise is important for sustaining weight loss though, right? Can you talk a bit about what the literature says on that? Exercise makes people feel good. Avoiding food can just make people feel deprived. Exercise also gets people distracted from wanting food or other stressors, and it alleviates stress. But exercise also has real physical benefits. Right. We are burning calories. It’s good for all of our systems—from our heart to our digestive system to our psychological well-being. People should exercise for their health overall but alone it’s not good for weight loss. Researchers are supposed to note their funding sources. So if scientists acknowledge their work is supported by Coke, does it resolve conflicts of interest? I think that’s a good ethical question. Funding research is expensive. If Coke or anyone wants to contribute to unbiased research, then I don’t want to stop them. I don’t think that’s inherently a bad thing. Obviously there is a conflict of interest, and I don’t think it’s an accident that Coke seems to be targeting people who have been doing physical activity work their entire careers and not people who have been doing eating and diet work. I am not arguing that exercise isn’t important but it strikes me as a bit suspect. No respectable researcher would be part of an enterprise that hides results that do not support the Coke message, and some of these researchers are well known and quite reputable so I do not think that is on the table. I think the issue is what is done with the results and how they are presented to the public. Coke is spending millions of dollars here and has a marketing PR budget that researchers don’t have so they can take the findings and share them and use them to try to fight policy and all these laws that are being debated about taxing soda. Coke has this body of evidence that is biased since they are funding exercise studies and not diet studies. They can then use these in public policy debates, and I think that could be really worrisome. [Editor’s Note: Scientific American asked Coca-Cola to explain their position and the company e-mailed this response: “We recognize moderation and diet play a pivotal role in managing health and weight in combination with exercise. In fact, we continue to take steps to help people manage their calories—whether it’s through the introduction of smaller-sized packs, front-of-pack calorie labeling or innovation through new products such as Coca-Cola Life. In addition, last year we joined with the American Beverage Association, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation and other industry partners on a beverage-calorie reduction commitment for every person of 20 percent by 2025. Clearly, we support calorie reduction as a tool for a healthier life.”]
Robert Reich: American CEO pay is completely out of control
The Securities and Exchange Commission approved a rule last week requiring that large publicly held corporations disclose the ratios of the pay of their top CEOs to the pay of their median workers. About time. For the last thirty years almost all incentives operating on American corporations have resulted in lower pay for average workers and higher pay for CEOs and other top executives. Consider that in 1965, CEOs of America’s largest corporations were paid, on average, 20 times the pay of average workers. Now, the ratio is over 300 to 1. Not only has CEO pay exploded, so has the pay of top executives just below them. The share of corporate income devoted to compensating the five highest-paid executives of large corporations ballooned from an average of 5 percent in 1993 to more than 15 percent by 2005 (the latest data available). Corporations might otherwise have devoted this sizable sum to research and development, additional jobs, higher wages for average workers, or dividends to shareholders – who, not incidentally, are supposed to be the owners of the firm. Corporate apologists say CEOs and other top executives are worth these amounts because their corporations have performed so well over the last three decades that CEOs are like star baseball players or movie stars. Baloney. Most CEOs haven’t done anything special. The entire stock market surged over this time. Even if a company’s CEO simply played online solitaire for thirty years, the company’s stock would have ridden the wave. Besides, that stock market surge has had less to do with widespread economic gains than with changes in market rules favoring big companies and major banks over average employees, consumers, and taxpayers. Consider, for example, the stronger and more extensive intellectual-property rights now enjoyed by major corporations, and the far weaker antitrust enforcement against them. Add in the rash of taxpayer-funded bailouts, taxpayer-funded subsidies, and bankruptcies favoring big banks and corporations over employees and small borrowers. Not to mention trade agreements making it easier to outsource American jobs, and state legislation (cynically termed “right-to-work” laws) dramatically reducing the power of unions to bargain for higher wages. The result has been higher stock prices but not higher living standards for most Americans. Which doesn’t justify sky-high CEO pay unless you think some CEOs deserve it for their political prowess in wangling these legal changes through Congress and state legislatures. It even turns out the higher the CEO pay, the worse the firm does. Professors Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah, Huseyin Gulen of Purdue University, and P. Raghavendra Rau of the University of Cambridge, recently found that companies with the highest-paid CEOs returned about 10 percent less to their shareholders than do their industry peers. So why aren’t shareholders hollering about CEO pay? Because corporate law in the United States gives shareholders at most an advisory role. They can holler all they want, but CEOs don’t have to listen. Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, received a pay package in 2013 valued at $78.4 million, a sum so stunning that Oracle shareholders rejected it. That made no difference because Ellison controlled the board. In Australia, by contrast, shareholders have the right to force an entire corporate board to stand for re-election if 25 percent or more of a company’s shareholders vote against a CEO pay plan two years in a row. Which is why Australian CEOs are paid an average of only 70 times the pay of the typical Australian worker. The new SEC rule requiring disclosure of pay ratios could help strengthen the hand of American shareholders. The rule might generate other reforms as well – such as pegging corporate tax rates to those ratios. Under a bill introduced in the California legislature last year, a company whose CEO earns only 25 times the pay of its typical worker would pay a corporate tax rate of only 7 percent, rather than the 8.8 percent rate now applied to all California firms. On the other hand, a company whose CEO earns 200 times the pay of its typical employee, would face a 9.5 percent rate. If the CEO earned 400 times, the rate would be 13 percent. The bill hasn’t made it through the legislature because business groups call it a “job killer.” The reality is the opposite. CEOs don’t create jobs. Their customers create jobs by buying more of what their companies have to sell. So pushing companies to put less money into the hands of their CEOs and more into the hands of their average employees will create more jobs. The SEC’s disclosure rule isn’t perfect. Some corporations could try to game it by contracting out their low-wage jobs. Some industries pay their typical workers higher wages than other industries. But the rule marks an important start.The Securities and Exchange Commission approved a rule last week requiring that large publicly held corporations disclose the ratios of the pay of their top CEOs to the pay of their median workers. About time. For the last thirty years almost all incentives operating on American corporations have resulted in lower pay for average workers and higher pay for CEOs and other top executives. Consider that in 1965, CEOs of America’s largest corporations were paid, on average, 20 times the pay of average workers. Now, the ratio is over 300 to 1. Not only has CEO pay exploded, so has the pay of top executives just below them. The share of corporate income devoted to compensating the five highest-paid executives of large corporations ballooned from an average of 5 percent in 1993 to more than 15 percent by 2005 (the latest data available). Corporations might otherwise have devoted this sizable sum to research and development, additional jobs, higher wages for average workers, or dividends to shareholders – who, not incidentally, are supposed to be the owners of the firm. Corporate apologists say CEOs and other top executives are worth these amounts because their corporations have performed so well over the last three decades that CEOs are like star baseball players or movie stars. Baloney. Most CEOs haven’t done anything special. The entire stock market surged over this time. Even if a company’s CEO simply played online solitaire for thirty years, the company’s stock would have ridden the wave. Besides, that stock market surge has had less to do with widespread economic gains than with changes in market rules favoring big companies and major banks over average employees, consumers, and taxpayers. Consider, for example, the stronger and more extensive intellectual-property rights now enjoyed by major corporations, and the far weaker antitrust enforcement against them. Add in the rash of taxpayer-funded bailouts, taxpayer-funded subsidies, and bankruptcies favoring big banks and corporations over employees and small borrowers. Not to mention trade agreements making it easier to outsource American jobs, and state legislation (cynically termed “right-to-work” laws) dramatically reducing the power of unions to bargain for higher wages. The result has been higher stock prices but not higher living standards for most Americans. Which doesn’t justify sky-high CEO pay unless you think some CEOs deserve it for their political prowess in wangling these legal changes through Congress and state legislatures. It even turns out the higher the CEO pay, the worse the firm does. Professors Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah, Huseyin Gulen of Purdue University, and P. Raghavendra Rau of the University of Cambridge, recently found that companies with the highest-paid CEOs returned about 10 percent less to their shareholders than do their industry peers. So why aren’t shareholders hollering about CEO pay? Because corporate law in the United States gives shareholders at most an advisory role. They can holler all they want, but CEOs don’t have to listen. Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, received a pay package in 2013 valued at $78.4 million, a sum so stunning that Oracle shareholders rejected it. That made no difference because Ellison controlled the board. In Australia, by contrast, shareholders have the right to force an entire corporate board to stand for re-election if 25 percent or more of a company’s shareholders vote against a CEO pay plan two years in a row. Which is why Australian CEOs are paid an average of only 70 times the pay of the typical Australian worker. The new SEC rule requiring disclosure of pay ratios could help strengthen the hand of American shareholders. The rule might generate other reforms as well – such as pegging corporate tax rates to those ratios. Under a bill introduced in the California legislature last year, a company whose CEO earns only 25 times the pay of its typical worker would pay a corporate tax rate of only 7 percent, rather than the 8.8 percent rate now applied to all California firms. On the other hand, a company whose CEO earns 200 times the pay of its typical employee, would face a 9.5 percent rate. If the CEO earned 400 times, the rate would be 13 percent. The bill hasn’t made it through the legislature because business groups call it a “job killer.” The reality is the opposite. CEOs don’t create jobs. Their customers create jobs by buying more of what their companies have to sell. So pushing companies to put less money into the hands of their CEOs and more into the hands of their average employees will create more jobs. The SEC’s disclosure rule isn’t perfect. Some corporations could try to game it by contracting out their low-wage jobs. Some industries pay their typical workers higher wages than other industries. But the rule marks an important start.
