At 12:30 pm today, a few dozen people laid down in the street at the intersection of 43rd Street and Second Avenue, stopping traffic from reaching the 42nd Street block housing the Israeli Consulate. Around them, a hundred or so people chanted from the sidewalks for the end of the occupation and the slaughter in Gaza. The writer Norman Finkelstein, a fierce critic of both Israel and of the BDS movement, had called the protest the day before. “A lot of people feel that going to a demonstration every three days doesn’t rise to the occasion, the immensity of the horror,” he told me. He noted that the Israeli bombing of Gaza is now in its twenty-first day, “which means it’s one day short of Cast Lead,” the assault on Gaza that began at the end of 2008. And there is no sign that this war is going to stop anytime soon.
The action didn’t last long. After issuing a few warnings for the demonstrators to move, the police swooped in, handcuffing people and carrying those who let their bodies go limp. Traffic was stopped for, at most, twenty minutes. Still, it didn’t seem like a futile effort, because this is a moment when it’s particularly important to break through the illusion, which pervades our politics, that American support for Israel and its war in Gaza is unshakable.
Already, there are anecdotal signs that conventional New York opinion, which tends to be liberal on everything except Palestine, is starting to shift. “If Netanyahu is so bothered by how dead Palestinians look on television then he should stop killing so many of them,” wrote Benjamin Wallace-Wells in a piece on New York magazine’s website last week, a sentiment that would have been hard to imagine coming from that publication a few years ago. Today, the magazine’s DC columnist Jonathan Chait, an occasionally hawkish veteran of The New Republic, has a post titled, “Why I Have Become Less Pro-Israel.” According to a recent CNN poll, while a majority of Americans continue to support Israel, 38 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the country, up fourteen points since February.
I don’t want to overstate this—after all, 10,000 people showed up at a pro-Israel rally in front of the United Nations yesterday. Even there, however, there were a couple of people with signs, in English, Arabic and Hebrew, mourning the dead in Gaza. “To the older woman who kept following me with her own ‘Stand with Israel’ sign to block my own sign and yelling out loud—look at the traitor—he’s a mamzer—a bastard—I turned and said, calmly—my father is a Holocaust Survivor, please respect him if not me,” wrote the rabbinical student Amichai Lau-Lavie. “To which she replied—he should have died there. There were other obscene and racist statements that I won’t describe.” People like this woman, obviously, are not reachable. But others might be. What’s happening is simply so brutal and inexcusable that it makes the rote rationalizations of Israel’s apologists sound ever more risible.
So it’s important for people who feel, intuitively, that there is something deeply wrong happening in Gaza to see others fighting for that conviction. Among those who were taken into custody today was Corey Robin, a Jewish professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. Robin is a longtime critic of Israel, but he’d never before been arrested over it. “I finally felt like I had to do something,” he said a few moments before lying down in the street. “This is my first time doing this for Palestine. If it’s my first time, it’s going to be somebody else’s first time, if not now, then another time.
Over the past two weeks, on the heels of an announced extension to nuclear talks with Iran, Republicans in the Senate introduced two measures that could erect obstacles in reaching and implementing a final agreement with the Islamic Republic. One of the efforts, led by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, would mandate congressional approval before a nuclear deal could be struck. Another, spearheaded by the Senate’s most ferocious Iran hawk, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, would strip President Barack Obama of his ability to waive Iran sanctions—something the president might need to do in order to hold up the American end of the bargain and give Iran relief.
What’s most notable about these efforts, however, is their distinctly Republican nature. Both are co-sponsored by a bevy of GOP hawks, with no Democrats having yet signed on. (As of press time, the Corker bill has nine Republican co-sponsors and the Kirk bill has eight.)
This portends a further shift along the lines of what Eli Clifton and I discussed in our recent Nation feature on how hawkish groups influence the Hill: with diplomacy advancing as far as it has under Obama, the stakes were suddenly raised and Democrats became skittish about being seen as in opposition to one of their own president’s biggest foreign policy initiatives. As we wrote, some sixteen Democrats signed onto a sanctions measure introduced this winter—S. 1881, co-sponsored by Senators Kirk, Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—but failed to generate more Democratic support after its initial introduction (whereas a number of additional Republicans signed on). In the end, many of the Democrats jumped ship when the party’s leadership, the White House and constituents pressured them.
From the perspective of opponents of diplomacy—and make no mistake that these new bills are sponsored by opponents of diplomacy—this is bad news. And they know it: when the Democrats, including Menendez, an original co-sponsor, backed off on holding an immediate vote on S. 1881, the influential pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tapped the brakes, too. “[S]topping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support and there should not be a vote at this time on the measure,” the group said in a statement.
Whatever Democrats AIPAC is able to wrangle to support measures like Kirk’s and Corker’s will simply act as fig leafs for what is in fact an increasingly partisan fight over Iran policy. To understand this dynamic, one needs only look at the anti-diplomacy lobby Eli and I outlined in our piece and the funders highlighted in a sidebar: the three billionaires against diplomacy—Paul Singer, Bernard Marcus and Sheldon Adelson—are all heavyweight Republican donors. (Adelson, for one, has said that the United States should use a nuclear weapon against Iran instead of negotiating with it.)
It’s not a coincidence that those three are also, according to the most recent comprehensive numbers, the three top donors to the Foundation of Defense Democracies (FDD), an influential and hawkish Iran-focused think-tank that Eli and I discussed at length in our report. Though FDD works with some of the most hawkish Democrats on the Hill, GOP connections abound: its president, Cliff May, was a communications director with the Republican National Committee and edited the party’s official magazine before launching FDD. The GOP bent became clear in 2008, when an FDD offshoot, the now defunct defenseofdemocracies.org, launched political attack ads against fifteen Democrats, precipitating the resignations of major Democrats on the group’s board.
With the Democratic leadership aligning in favor of diplomacy, hawkish members of the partly like Menendez are likely to only become more isolated and, should they persist, could end up working on overwhelming Republican initiatives. That could help insulate the Obama administration from criticisms over negotiating with Iran and legislative efforts that have potential to block a deal. It wouldn’t be surprising, in other words, to learn that the White House was secretly supportive of Republicans—and Republicans alone—taking up efforts to kill diplomacy.
Election seasons are supposed to provide an opportunity for sitting officials to explain their records, and for challengers to question them. And when a top official is facing intense scrutiny based on recent revelations—as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is in the aftermath of reports regarding his administration’s handling of a corruption inquiry—the need for election season accountability is that much greater.
So it only makes sense that Cuomo should debate his Democratic primary challenger, Fordham University Law School professor Zephyr Teachout.
Cuomo took a hard hit when The New York Times reported on July 23 that a high-powered commission he established to root out corruption “was hobbled almost from the outset by demands from the governor’s office.” That followed an earlier report in the New York Daily News that “New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s anti-corruption commission killed a subpoena to the state Democratic Party that he controls.”
Cuomo says it is “false” to suggest that the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption had its independence “trumped” by his aides. But the Daily News says, “Cuomo insisted Monday that the commission operated independently—a rather stunning statement, given his past gyrations.” And the Times says, “Gov. Andrew Cuomo ran for office four years ago promising first and foremost to clean up Albany. Not only has he not done that, but now he is looking as bad as the forces he likes to attack.”
No matter how hard Cuomo and his allies may try to defuse the issue, it’s going to stick with him through this election year. And the governor will only make things worse for himself if he is seen as avoiding public forums for addressing the issues that have arisen.
That’s one of the reasons Cuomo should accept Teachout’s proposal for at least three debates before the September 9 Democratic primary.
Teachout lacks Cuomo’s name identification and campaign treasury. But she is a uniquely credible challenger in this race, and for this debate. As the first national director of the Sunlight Foundation, which has been in the forefront of advocacy for increased transparency and accountability government and politics, she’s an actual expert on corruption issues—and on how to address them. She has written widely on, spoken about and debated issues of money in politics at the local, state and national levels for years. And she has earned national acclaim as a lawyer, an academic and an author on numerous books, including the upcoming Corruption in America, which will be published this fall by Harvard University Press.
And Teachout has made a uniquely credible case for why debates are needed.
“The Cuomo administration’s handling of the Moreland Commission distills what plagues our democracy: a special class of insiders in Albany, connected through financial and political clout, have immunized themselves from the law,” she says. “Governor Cuomo has taken this corruption and elevated it to new levels.”
The governor would, undoubtedly, disagree with that assessment, as he would with Teachout’s argument that “[t]he corruption in our Government is threatening the very basis of our democracy. Albany is working for big money, instead of the people of the state.”
But when a credible challenger, with background and expertise on a central issue, makes such a charge, that is precisely the point at which an incumbent officeholder should be expected to respond.
What makes Teachout’s invitation even more worthy of a response is the fact that she makes it not as a partisan who has always been at odds with Cuomo but as someone who once backed the governor. “I supported Andrew Cuomo in 2010 because I believed he would follow through on his promises to clean up Albany. In his campaign booklet of 2010, Andrew Cuomo said that State government was plagued by scandal,” says Teachout. “I believed him when he said, ‘In many cases the dysfunction has metastasized into corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush.’ I believed him when he said we must restore honor and integrity to Government.”
Now, argues the challenger, Cuomo has become an example of what he said he would address. “Shutting down your own anti-corruption commission when it gets too close to power,” explains Teachout, “ is something that would make Boss Tweed blush.”
Incumbents and front-runners don’t like to debate primary challengers.
But primary debates have a great history in New York Democratic politics. When Mario Cuomo and Ed Koch were running against each other for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1982, they debated close to a dozen times—taking their sometimes intense discourse to every corner of the state. Mario Cuomo won the primary and the governorship.
Twenty years later, when Andrew Cuomo first bid for New York’s governorship in 2002, he participated in a series of debates with his Democratic primary foe, State Comptroller Carl McCall. Cuomo lost that year, but he came back eight years later. In 2010, he secured the Democratic nod without a serious fight, but Cuomo willingly participated in a wild fall debate that included not just Republican nominee Carl Paladino but five candidates of smaller parties. Stressing his determination to root out fraud, abuse and corruption, Cuomo was generally seen as having won the debate—as he did the ensuing election.
Debates are good for democracy. But they are not merely exercises in civil duty. Debates allow for the airing of complex issues of personal and political integrity that can never be adequately addressed in thirty-second attack ads on television.
A Cuomo-Teachout debate would allow two capable candidates an opportunity to wrestle not just with questions about the Moreland Commission and money in politics but with a range of pressing issues.
Teachout wants debates on education, immigration and hydrofracking.
“But,” she adds, well aware of the turn New York’s 2014 campaign has taken, “all three would end up in a debate about corruption.”
Read Next: Katrina vanden Heuvel on why progressives need to build an alternative to ALEC
You never know what might happen when a bunch of Republican governors get together to discuss policy and politics. Well, actually you do kinda know: that they’ll make asses out of themselves, and at great length. So it was with some trepidation and some glee that your faithful Christie Watchers took a look at the discussion at the Aspen Institute bringing together five GOP governors: Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rick Scott of Florida, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Sam Brownback of Kansas. Two of them, Christie and Walker, are potential GOP candidates in 2016, and Haley might be positioning herself as a vice presidential candidate.
What’s interesting about the discussion is that not a single one of the five panelists tried to pick up on anything that has emerged so far from the hubbub over “reform conservatism” (see Part I, Part II and Part III of Christie Watch’s recent examination of the reformicons) and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan’s recent, errant foray into poverty and “opportunity,” even though the moderator asked the panel specifically about Ryan’s proposal. Maybe it’s too early to draw any conclusions, but it sure looks like the Republican party hasn’t gotten the memo that it’s supposed to be “kinder and gentler” (as George H.W. Bush might say) or more “compassionately conservative” (as George W. Bush might say). It’s still your grandfather’s GOP.
Brownback went first, asked about Ryan’s ideas, and he launched into a long defense of his own program in Kansas, which centered on austerity, tax cuts and other GOP touchstones. Brownback, running for re-election, and about to get a visit from Christie, put into place a wide range of cuts after the GOP solidified its majority in Kansas, but oops!—as Rick Perry might say—it all backfired, causing huge economic problems in the Sunflower State and leading more than a hundred Republican moderates to endorse Brownback’s Democratic opponent. But none of that stopped the ultra-right Brownback from claiming that Ryan is trying to lead the “pro-growth wing of the party”—“you’ve got to cut taxes in a way that creates growth”—raising his hand and saying with a goofy grin, “I’m in that wing of the party!” No, governor, you’re not. You’re in the wing of the party that even your fellow Kansas Republicans say wrecked your state. When the panel’s moderator noted that Brownback’s policy had led to a $300 million shortfall, Brownback’s response was: “We cut taxes in order to put that money back into private business.” For good measure, Brownback attacked the “vast-left wing conspiracy” for its criticism of his efforts to dismantle Kansas’ entire public sector. But the moderator persisted, saying that Kansas’ employment is lagging behind its neighbors, and that growth is slow, asking Brownback if he planned any adjustments. “I don’t see it,” said Brownback.
Walker went next. He is, of course, the governor who provoked a statewide revolt, mass demonstrations by union members and others, and an impeachment-style recall election over his brutal assault on state workers. Walker, too, like Paul Ryan’s plan. “We’re ahead of the curve,” he bragged. Well, yes, if the curve involves triggering statewide protests unprecedented in recent American history. And Walker essentially argued that he’s making Wisconsin job-friendly, and investment-friendly, by driving down wages. Which, of course, makes Wisconsin the would-be “China” of American states.
Next came Rick Scott, the much-reviled governor of Florida who used to run a gigantic, nationwide hospital system, then called Columbia/HCA, which paid $1.7 billion in what was then the biggest fine in US history for bilking Medicare out of billions of dollars. Scott, too, bragged about vast tax cuts. “We’ve cut taxes every year,” said Scott. “It actually works really well.” And if you’re in the 1 percent, it does. Higher taxes, Scott said, drive people to leave the state—the bogus argument made against New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio over his proposed tax hikes on the rich. He was followed by Haley, who slammed “both Republicans and Democrats” in Congress for the gridlock in Washington—except for Paul Ryan, of course. She described South Carolina’s recent efforts to undermine the state’s welfare program.
Then came Christie. “First off, I agree with everything that’s been said by my four colleagues,” he said. Now, the problem that Christie has is that the can’t tout New Jersey’s economic progress, because there is none—and that’s a terrible selling point for a presidential candidate. Things are a mess in New Jersey, and thanks to Christie its public pension system is spiraling downwards once again, caused by his proposed cuts on pension spending, even as the state’s bond ratings have been continually downgraded by bond agencies. Thus, as The Wall Street Journal’s Heather Haddon reports, in a piece entitled “New Jersey’s Weak Economy Opens Christie Up to Political Attacks on the Road,” Christie is under fire across the country even from Republicans over New Jersey’s poor economic performance. Reports the Journal:
The state’s bond rating is among the worst in the nation. More than 8% of the state’s home loans are in foreclosure, according to a May report by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Job growth has lagged behind neighboring states, even as Mr. Christie has pushed aggressive tax and business incentives. And after catapulting to national renown in 2011 by promising to fix his state’s pension system, the governor said earlier this spring he would forgo about $2.4 billion in promised payments over two years, citing a weak economy. Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded the state’s debt twice, rating it as the country’s second lowest, after Illinois’s. More downgrades could be on the horizon, said Baye Larsen, the firm’s lead New Jersey analyst, citing the state’s weighty pension obligations and slower growth.
The discussion veered off into education policy—and Christie Watch will report more extensively on Christie’s education policy, including attacks on teachers and support for Wall Street–backed charter schools later this week—the panel moved on to healthcare. The moderator, to his credit, noted that in all five states represented by the panelists there were no state-run health insurance exchanges, under the terms of the hated Affordable Care Act, which in turn might jeopardize Medicaid in those states. Scott noted proudly that he “built a large hospital company” (that would be the crooked one that paid that $1.7 billion fine for wrongdoing), adding, “Obamacare is a disaster”—and then actually had the nerve to say that “Medicare Advantage is being raided,” which is ironic, at least, coming from someone who’s own firm gleefully “raided” Medicare to the tune of billions of dollars in overbilling.
No, thank you, said Scott, Florida won’t be setting up any insurance exchanges. Added Walker, “We’ve gotta repeal it.”
Near the end of the session, in response to a Republican questioner who said he was tired of Republicans being too extreme on social issues, Christie—who began by saying that he’s “pro-life”—delivered a long riff on how the GOP ought not to change any of its positions on social issues but can win simply by presenting its views differently and pretending to be “listening” to people who disagree: “I don’t think we’re being pounded because of the social issues. We’re getting pounded because of the way we present ourselves. People want folks who are authentic and who believe what they say is true, but also are willing to be tolerant and listen to others’ points of view. You’ll get some folks who’ll say that if you’re willing to listen that somehow you’re weak on your own principles. That’s absolutely garbage. I have plenty of people in my state who vote for me who have significantly different opinions than mine on some of these issues.… The reason is that they think I’m listening to them.… We’ve lost for a whole bunch of reasons over the last two cycles, and I think that the social issues is an absolutely minor one. Some folks will say that we lose the women’s vote because of that. Well I got 56 percent of the women’s vote and I didn’t change my positions one iota. Did they forget? No. They made a holistic evaluation.”
When it comes to moments in history, 1973 was not exactly a banner year for the Republican Party. The Senate Watergate Committee began its televised hearings in May. Spiro Agnew resigned in October. And President Nixon used a pre-Thanksgiving news conference at Disney World to unconvincingly assure the country that he was not, in fact, a crook. A tough year, indeed, for the grand old party.
But if you were a corporate conglomerate who dreamed of lower taxes and lax regulations and lesser rights for workers, 1973 was, ironically enough, a well-spring of new opportunity. That’s when a group of conservative activists joined together to engineer a different kind of burglary—one that involved forcibly entering cities and states with the intent to loot their working and middle classes.
The mechanism? A new organization dubbed the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The idea? Don’t just lobby state and city governments; write the actual laws you want them to pass and then hand it out as model legislation. In the decades since its inception, ALEC has dismantled environmental regulations, pushed for school vouchers, compromised public safety by backing “stand your ground” laws and crippled unions with right-to-work legislation.
ALEC remains the ubiquitous conservative puppet-master; its fingerprints and that of its most well-known supporters (the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, AT&T, etc.) can be found all over right-wing legislation that has made its way through the state and local legislative process. To understand the magnitude of its influence, consider that of the more than 100 bills introduced between 2011 and 2013 to repeal or weaken minimum wage laws, sixty-seven of them related back to ALEC. And in 2009,115 of ALEC’s 826 model bills were enacted into law.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Read Next: The downing of Flight 17 should trigger talks, not more violence
Low-wage federal workers walked off the job Tuesday morning across Washington, DC, to demand an executive order for higher wages—building on a successful push earlier this year to raise the wage of federal contract workers to $10.10.
President Obama announced during this year’s State of the Union address that he would indeed raise the wage of federal contract workers, after a lengthy pressure campaign—but Good Jobs Nation, a group leading the earlier strikes, now believes $10.10 isn’t high enough. Over 200 workers planned to walk off the job on Tuesday at a variety of workplaces that contract with the federal government, and they want Obama to go even higher.
At Union Station, Washington’s central train hub and a federally owned building with many restaurants and retail outlets, striking workers were joined by several members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as some faith leaders.
“I don’t believe that any federal contractor who doesn’t want to pay people a livable wage should have a federal contract,” Representative Keith Ellison, a co-chair of the CPC, told the crowd. “There’s enough federal contractors who want to be fair and do good by their workers. We don’t have to keep with the crooked ones.”
“If we’re paying companies with taxpayer dollars, they should take care of their workers,” said Representative Barbara Lee. Lee and Ellison were joined by Representatives Sheila Jackson-Lee and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting member who represents DC.
Erica Gayles, who works at a Dunkin’ Donuts inside the Pentagon, has helped lead the strike and spoke with The Nation on Monday afternoon. She described how she attended the University of the District of Columbia for three years, before her mother fell ill. Gayles was forced to drop out and find work immediately.
“Yes it wasn’t the best job, but little pay is better than no pay at all. And I’m kind of stuck because I’m tired of working this tiring job for a little bit of money,” she said. “I’d also like to go back to school and obtain my degree in criminal justice.”
In the meantime, she wants Obama to step up again for low-wage workers. “I’m involved with this movement because a lot of workers are afraid to speak up for what’s right, but I’m here because I want to be the voice of those who are afraid because there shouldn’t be fear,” she said. “You should have no fear in speaking up for what’s right. It’s not like you’re doing anything illegal. We need this to survive, everybody else is surviving and getting benefits, getting paid good, and we work hard.”
According to the National Employment Law Project, when they interviewed 500 federal workers last year in service industry jobs, they found that 70 percent made less than $10 per hour. Most federal contracts have yet to be affected by the earlier executive order, which for legal reasons can only apply to newly signed contracts.
Last February, The Nation, with support from the Investigative Fund, published a broad look into the many failures of America’s lobbying disclosure system. Among several revelations in the piece, we reported that major aspects of lobbying law have gone completely unenforced. The Department of Justice, we found, has never brought an enforcement action against an individual or firm for failing to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The only LDA enforcement actions to date have been from individuals who do register but fall behind in their paperwork. But for the thousands of influence peddlers in Washington, DC, who go about their trade without registration and disclosure, law enforcement has turned a blind eye.
That may be changing.
According to a story posted on Friday by The Hill, “the Office of Congressional Ethics has for the first time accused an entity of lobbying Congress illegally. The complaint has been referred to the Justice Department, which enforces the Lobbying Disclosure Act, but few other details are available.”
Notably, the first law firm to receive notice of this referral was Covington & Burling, Attorney General Eric Holder’s previous employer. Covington’s Robert Kelner wrote:
For several years, we have been warning clients and others that it was only a matter of time before we would see criminal referrals against lobbyists who fail to register under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (“LDA”). Until now, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has focused exclusively—and rarely—on bringing cases against registered lobbyists who fail to timely file reports. This week, however, the Office of Congressional Ethics (“OCE”) of the U.S. House of Representatives mentioned in its quarterly report that during the second quarter of this year, “OCE voted to refer one entity to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for failure to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.” This is big news.
It’s not clear yet which “shadow lobbyist” is being targeted for investigation. But just the fact that the DOJ is finally taking a look into this problem, which includes prominent members of both parties, is indeed big news.
Read Next: George Zornick on the bill that could make union organizing a civil right
This post was originally published at RepublicReport.org.
Among visitors to Freedom Fest, a libertarian convention in Las Vegas, you might miss the aging Don Blankenship amid other middle-aged attendees and a swarm of college students in three-piece suits. Blankenship, wearing a bowling shirt and tan slacks, moves from panel to panel carrying a tote bag filled with free schwag—of which there was a lot to choose from, including this “water bottle” from the Charles Koch Institute—like anyone else. The former CEO of Massey Energy became the most feared man in West Virginia for his ruthless control over his mines and for busting unions throughout Appalachia. Now, he might be the most hated, after a 2010 blast at his company’s Upper Big Branch mine killed twenty-nine workers in one of the worst mining disasters in American history.
Blankenship, who retired from Massey after the tragedy at UBB, is now a political activist, and he’s in Nevada for several reasons. For one thing, he was there to attend the Heartland Institute’s conference on global warming denial, which preceded Freedom Fest. And in any case, he now resides in Sin City for tax purposes.
It’s the first time Blankenship has attended either event, he tells me, but he’s eager to gather intellectual fodder for a movie he’s creating on the US economy. “I’m basically looking for information and fresh ideas,” Blankenship says. “We’re in a reg-cecession,” he explains, which is a term he created for “a recession caused by excessive regulation, including many based on global warming.”
At the height of his power, shortly before the blast, Blankenship was already a powerful political player and served on the board of the US Chamber of Commerce, arguably the most influential business lobbying group in the world. After the mine tragedy, the Chamber and other coal-connected political groups successfully defeated congressional efforts to update the laws governing mine safety. Republic Report obtained a financial disclosure form that shows that under Blankenship his coal company donated $100,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank that penned an op-ed after the mine collapse to warn against letting the tragedy be used by “anti-mining activists” for new regulations.
“Most people excuse their lack of involvement in politics as politics being dirty and politics causing problems,” says Blankenship, “but the only way to have good government is to have better candidates and elect better people and it’s why we have $17 trillion in debt and an economy that’s declining.”
Blankenship concedes that he is not as active in the political realm as he used to be, though he still gives an occasional phone call to his former colleagues. “I’ve spoken to the US Chamber and I’ve spoken to the coal associations. You can not just immediately have your hand out to compromise, you’ve got to have belief and you have to stand up for what’s right, not what’s politically correct.”
After listening to Blankenship’s short diatribe against the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, I asked Blankenship what should be done about these environmental groups. “You’ve got to fight them at every step,” he replies. “The environmental movement isn’t a great cause, it’s a great business.”
To Blankenship, the EPA’s coal power plant regulations and the mine safety crowd all represent the same ideology. “The actual UBB explosion was partially the result of the war on coal,” he says.
A minute later, after mentioning that he is going to be late to meet his date for lunch, he makes the connection even more explicit. “UBB is just another example of how willing the far left is to outright lie and of course when I was CEO of Massey I was coached to say ‘untruthful,’ but really it’s a lie. The reason you know they will lie about the science of global warming is because they lied about the very science of UBB. Their willingness to lie about that solidifies in my mind their willingness to lie about the science of global warming.”
Over the last year, Blankenship has tried to clear his name over the UBB mine disaster. He created a short video and has told almost any reporter willing to listen that the disaster was a freak accident relating to the buildup of natural gas. Reports from workers and subsequent investigations have made clear that Massey Energy’s mines had skirted safety rules and were infamous for allowing a dangerous build-up of methane and other flammable gas. A study from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University showed that Massey’s corner-cutting had led to the worst safety record of any coal mining company for ten years prior to the disaster.
Blankenship continues to expound on his worldview. “Here’s where I get into answers that are very unpopular.” A wry grin creeps Blankenship’s otherwise expressionless face. “You’re basically seeing, well, I don’t want to use the word, but the way I describe fascism is the control of people’s lives by the combined efforts of big business and big government.” He rattles off several examples: GE’s getting sweetheart deals from the Obama administration, the bank bailouts, Warren Buffet. Publicly traded companies are increasingly making their money overseas, so they don’t have to comply with domestic regulations, Blankenship says. That’s why they support the Obama administration.
Before he has to go, he reminds me that his movie on regulation will come out on Labor Day. Its argument, he claims will even sell with union workers, who have been duped by their bosses into supporting anti-mining politicians like Obama and Joe Biden.
Who would better lead our country?
“I love Ted Cruz’s courage with the Obamacare filibuster,” he says. “I don’t like Rand Paul as much as father Ron Paul. Like what Rubio’s been saying. Ben Carson.” If he had his druthers, who would he pick for the White House? “I’d reincarnate Ronald Reagan.”
With that, he smiled for the second time in the conference, waddled into his seat and disappeared into a crowd of other libertarian activists.
Read Next: Paul Ryan’s big and bad ideas for America’s working poor
With so many wars and crises now exploding across the globe, New York Times media columnist David Carr looks at how social media are changing how the public and journalists themselves experience violence and tragedy. How is news digested when it’s new down to the second? Does the immediacy of the reporting from Gaza or Ukraine or Syria make us more involved, or does the onslaught of information result in more war fatigue, disaster fatigue, or any of the other fatigues rampant in a busy consumer society like ours?
“Bearing witness is the oldest and perhaps most valuable tool in the journalist’s arsenal,” Carr writes,
but it becomes something different delivered in the crucible of real time, without pause for reflection. It is unedited, distributed rapidly and globally, and immediately responded to by the people formerly known as the audience .
It has made for a more visceral, more emotional approach to reporting. War correspondents arriving in a hot zone now provide an on-the-spot moral and physical inventory that seems different from times past. That emotional content, so noticeable when Anderson Cooper was reporting from the Gulf Coast during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, has now become routine, part of the real-time picture all over the web. …
The public has developed an expectation that it will know exactly what a reporter knows every single second, and news organizations are increasingly urging their correspondents to use social media to tell their stories—and to extend their brand. (Unless the reporter says something dumb. Then, not so much.)
Carr quotes Susan Sontag from a 2002 New Yorker essay on “the perennial seductiveness of war.”
“Making suffering loom larger, by globalizing it, may spur people to feel they ought to ‘care’ more,” she wrote. “It also invites them to feel that the sufferings and misfortunes are too vast, too irrevocable, too epic to be much changed by any local, political intervention.”
So now that war comes to us in real time, do we feel helpless or empowered? Do we care more, or will the ubiquity of images and information desensitize us to the point where human suffering loses meaning when it is part of a scroll that includes a video of your niece twerking ? Oh, we say as our index finger navigates to the next item, another one of those .
Of course, it’s not an either/or. One person can both care and be emotionally numb within a day or a second. Either way, as Carr writes, “When a trigger gets pulled or bombs explode, real people are often on the wrong end of it. And bearing witness to the consequences gives meaning to what we see.”
Read Next: Michelle Goldberg on feminism’s twitter wars