Katrina vanden Heuvel | The Nation

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Politics, current affairs and riffs and reflections on the news.

For Pussy Riot Members, No More Taking Freedom for Granted

Pussy Riot Amnesty International

Nadya Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina at Amnesty International press conference on February 5, 2014. (Reuters/Shannon Stapleton)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

If an appearance on The Colbert Report is a measure of success, then Pussy Riot has arrived.

Fresh out of prison, Nadya Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, two members of the Russian punk protest group, were in New York last week for a whirlwind tour. After winning over Colbert and his audience, the duo spoke at Wednesday’s all-star Amnesty International concert at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, where they were introduced by no less than Madonna.

It was quite a shift from the last “stage” the women appeared on together: a Moscow church in 2012, where Pussy Riot put on a protest performance and were subsequently arrested and imprisoned for “hooliganism.” They were released as the Winter Olympics approached and have since been quite public in their criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

The real story, however, isn’t their vocal, vehement opposition to Putin. It’s what they’re doing with their freedom. The women have been on an international journey of sorts— not to “breathe fresh air and enjoy ourselves” but to visit prisons in other countries and bring what they learn back to Russia.

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This Week in ‘Nation’ History: The Long Battle for Progressive, Humane Immigration Reform

Crosses on the US/Mexico border wall

Community members cover the US/Mexico border wall with crosses bearing the names of the men, women and children who have died attempting to enter the United States. (Photo by Dave Brewer)

One year ago, after President Obama won re-election with overwhelming support from the Latino community, Republicans in Congress, led by Senator Marco Rubio, produced a “framework” for comprehensive immigration reform that would include a path to citizenship for at least some of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Enlightened elements of the GOP seemed to belatedly recognize that the party could only expect further and more resounding defeats at the ballot box as long as it continued to impede Latinos struggling to find security and success in this country. “There are signs that the stars are aligning in favor of reform,” The Nation editorialized last February, “but we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. The real battle begins now.”

It is difficult to do battle, however, when the other side refuses to take the field. After months of promiscuous footsy—partnering with the bipartisan Gang of Eight to write a comprehensive bill before abruptly ceasing cooperation and embracing draconian, deal-killing enforcement mechanisms—last October Rubio gave up on serious reform entirely, calculating—quite wrongly, we suspect—that there was more electoral gain in soothing the Tea Party’s race anxieties than in pursuing true justice for millions of new Americans.

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner has now made the same faulty calculation, announcing last week that he thought it was unlikely immigration reform could be passed by the end of 2014. The cowardly retreat by congressional Republicans from a long-overdue comprehensive immigration overhaul—coming just days after releasing a list of their “principles” for future legislation—only underscores the extent to which the GOP is fatally out-of-touch with the pulse and future of this country.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

While the need for such legislation is unprecedented and the depths of Republican antipathy to immigrants never ceases to amaze, it’s worth recalling that on the issue of immigration as on much else there is little new under the sun. Ninety years ago, when another set of reactionary congressional Republicans were trying to pass a bill to restrict immigration—this time by further lowering quotas for Southern and Eastern European immigrants—The Nation published an editorial titled, “Land of the Noble Free.” The first line employed terminology now recognized as offensive, but the argument itself could easily have been written today:

Americans are all immigrants—all except the red Indians—and if the anthropologists be right, even they migrated from Asia. There is no American race; there is not even the established claim of centuries to plead the primary right of any one stock….Whence comes this myth that our country is the private property of some one racial stock? Whence come the arrogant assumptions of those who, like the chairman of the House Committee on Immigration, want to preserve a “racial homogeneity” which has never existed?…

It is a tragic thing that this country, built on the sweat and aspirations of immigrants, should so soon be fencing itself about with a wall. We are becoming the great example of national selfishness in all the world. While we bar human beings from our shores we bully weaker countries into granting American capital privileges alien to their national interests. We force Mexico to revise its oil laws, tell China how to use its customs, ask Russia to reconsider its view of private property, and everywhere claim the “open door”—for American capital—as an American policy. “Equal rights and opportunities, for capital, all over the world”—what a bitter slogan for America when a hungry peasant from South Italy, a persecuted Jew from Rumania, an Armenian whose home is a heap of ashes finds the door to America slammed in his face!

The Immigration Act of 1924 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was only superseded by the abolition of all immigration quotas in 1965. But as Boehner’s announcement made clear, its spirit remains very much alive. For a fuller history, see Strangers in Our Land, an e-book collection of The Nation’s writings on immigration going back to 1868, which will be published next month.

Read Next: Ari Berman: North Carolina’s Moral Monday Movement Kicks Off 2014 With a Massive Rally in Raleigh.

* * *

Subscribers to The Nation can access our fully searchable digital archive, which contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to July 6, 1865.

Tom Perkins and the Guilt of the Gilded

May Day 2012

A May Day demonstration in New York City in 2012 (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

When Tom Perkins, the billionaire co-founder of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, warned in a letter to The Wall Street Journal that the “demonization of the rich” in America was comparable to the anti-Semitism that led to Kristallnacht, the coordinated attacks on Jews in 1938 Nazi Germany, the ensuing uproar led even his old firm to disavow his views.

Perkins’s ignorant comments reflect a spreading disquiet among the super-rich that populist attitudes may be getting out of control. Bankers such as Sergio Ermotti, chief executive of UBS, complain about people “constantly bashing banks.” After New Yorkers elected as mayor Bill de Blasio, who pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for universal pre-school, residents of the ultra-affluent Upper East Side neighborhood claimed that de Blasio ordered snow plows to avoid the area during a recent storm. Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone said that Pope Francis’s broadsides against inequality would reduce donations to the Catholic church.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

But it is inequality, not populism, that continues to spiral out of control. Billionaires attending the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) gathering in Davos, Switzerland were greeted with an Oxfam report revealing that the eighty-five richest people in the world have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest, or one half of humanity, and detailing the “pernicious impact” of the yawning disparities. Academics, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, argue convincingly that the extreme inequality contributes directly to global stagnation. And even the WEF’s own poll of movers and shakers this year named the growing wealth divide as the leading geopolitical risk. President Obama has chimed in as well, terming inequality the “defining challenge of our time.”

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This Week in ‘Nation’ History: The ‘Dreadfully Increasing Slaughter’ of NYC Pedestrians, 100 Years Ago

Ghost Bike, Upper East Side, 2009

A 'ghost bike' memorial for a cyclist killed in a traffic accident in New York City. (Flickr/emwilbz)

Two weeks ago, Mayor Bill de Blasio officially launched his Swedish-influenced “Vision Zero” initiative to completely eliminate all automobile-caused cyclist and pedestrian deaths in New York City. It is a laudable and much-needed program: an estimated 286 people died in traffic accidents in New York in 2013.

How striking, then, that one hundred years ago this week, The Nation was concerned with exactly the same problem. An editorial note in the February 5, 1914, issue began:

The figures of automobile killings in New York city in the first month of 1914 are such as to indicate that the year is to witness a further growth of the dreadfully increasing slaughter. The number is reported as twenty-eight for January. The total of these killings for 1913 was 302, which is more than double the total for 1911—a startling showing.

While there are exponentially more cars on the city’s roads in 2014 than there were in 1914, it is nonetheless surprising that despite significant advances in safety technology and regulations in the past century, the number of deaths caused by automobiles every year in New York City has barely changed at all. It is almost no safer to be a pedestrian on the city’s streets today than it was at the dawn of the automobile age 100 years ago, when oversight was minimal at best. Clearly, a new approach is needed, and it will have to account for the fundamental problems The Nation’s editors diagnosed in 1914:

By far the greater part of this automobile slaughter is caused by people driving for pleasure or desiring to save a few minutes of time in getting from one point to another…. Those who ride in automobiles are a small minority, fortunate in the possession of a luxury and a convenience to which nine-tenths of the people have no access. They have the benefit of the use of the public streets in a degree far beyond what is commensurate either to their numbers or to any specific contribution they make towards the cost of the streets. To this nobody objects; but it is intolerable that they should be permitted to put the rest of the people in danger.

Protection of cyclists and pedestrians from automobiles is not only a city planning issue; it is a social justice issue.

* * *

Sixteen years later, Carl Dreheer—a sound engineer in Hollywood and, beginning with this article, a frequent Nation contributor for almost forty years—wrote in “Homicide on Wheels” (August 27, 1930) that our callousness about automobile deaths reflected a disturbing change in social mores.

The automobile has ruined the temper and manners of the people who use the highways. In the good old somnolent days people got around in carriages and buggies at an average speed of eight or ten miles an hour. When a fast team came up behind a slower one on a rural highway and the vehicle ahead gave way, the passing driver customarily tipped his hat in acknowledgement of the other man’s courtesy in letting him by. When as a boy in up-state New York I was taught to drive, it was impressed on me that ordinary politeness required this gesture. Moreover, when a driver wanted to pass he did not make a noise about it; he simply followed close behind the other team until the man ahead became aware that passage was desired, whereupon he would generally turn out as soon as possible.

Contrast this procedure with the barbarities of present-day motoring and you will realize what the automobile has done to highway manners. Once a driver has gained facility, his manner of operating an automobile is an expression of his personality, like his style of making love, dictating to a stenographer, or asking his boss for a raise, and, unfortunately, too many motorists are barbarians.

The Nation’s most important contribution to the century-old debate about automobile safety came with our publication in April 1959 of “The Safe Car You Can’t Buy,” by a recent Harvard Law graduate named Ralph Nader. The Detroit auto industry, Nader wrote, was moving at a “glacier-like” pace to implement concrete, practical measures that would vastly improve passenger safety and save thousands of lives. The essay—with another Nation contribution, “Fashion or Safety: Detroit Makes Your Choice” (October 12, 1963)— led to his classic book Unsafe at Any Speed (1961), which not only revolutionized car-safety standards but launched the consumer protection movement that has similarly impacted countless industries in the United States and around the world.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

It is clear that Detroit today is designing automobiles for style, cost, performance and calculated obsolescence, but not—despite the 5,000,000 reported accidents, nearly 40,000 fatalities, 110,000 permanent disabilities and 1,500,000 injuries yearly—for safety.

Almost no feature of the interior design of our current cars provides safeguards against injury in the event of collision. Doors that fly open on impact, inadequately secured seats, the sharp-edged rearview mirror, pointed knobs on instrument panel and doors, flying glass, the overhead structure—all illustrate the lethal potential of poor design. A sudden deceleration turns a collapsed steering wheel or a sharp-edged dashboard into a bone and chest-crushing agent. Penetration of the shatterproof windshield can chisel one’s head into fractions. A flying seat cushion can cause a fatal injury. The apparently harmless glove-compartment door has been known to unlatch under impact and guillotine a child. Roof-supporting structure has deteriorated to a point where it provides scarcely more protection to the occupants, in common roll-over accidents, than an open convertible. This is especially true of the so-called “hardtops.” Nor is the automobile designed as an efficient force moderator. For example, the bumper does not contribute significantly to reduction of the crash of deceleration forces that are transmitted to the motorist; its function has been more to reflect style than absorb shock….

By all relevant criteria, a problem so national in scope and technical in nature can best be handled by the legislative process, on the federal level, with delegation to an appropriate administrative body. It requires uniformity in treatment and central administration, for as an interstate matter, the job cannot be left to the states with the dissimilar laws setting low requirements that are not strictly enforced and that do not strike at the heart of the malady—the blueprint on the Detroit drawing board. The thirty-three year record of the attempt to introduce state uniformity in establishing the most basic equipment standards for automobiles has been disappointing.

Perhaps the best summation of the whole issue lies in a physician’s comment on the car manufacturer’s design policy: “Translated into medicine,” he writes, “it would be comparable to withholding known methods of life-saving value.”

As The Nation has argued for at least 100 years, the only way to prevent thousands of needless deaths caused by automobiles is to shift the paradigm that privileges the comfort, convenience and style of the few above the safety and security of the many. It would be a historic achievement should Mayor de Blasio’s Vision Zero initiative succeed, at long last, in doing so.

Read Next: Jarrett Murphy: De Blasio Agrees to a Landmark Stop-and-Frisk Settlement.

* * *

Subscribers to The Nation can access our fully searchable digital archive, which contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to July 6, 1865.

The Promise of Transpartisanship

Obama, State of the Union 2013

President Barack Obama delivering his 2013 State of the Union address 2013 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, Pool)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

On Tuesday, Americans will tune in to watch President Obama’s fifth State of the Union Address. The annual ritual, with its pomp and circumstance, has become an almost grotesque visual of a gridlocked Washington. The president’s party will cheer. The opposition will jeer. A Supreme Court justice might sneer. Since President Obama took office, the partisan rancor has only intensified, reaching its ugliest point in 2009, when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted at the president, “You lie!”

Things have gotten so distasteful that some members have taken to symbolic gestures, including crossing the aisle to sit together or wearing orange lapel pins as part of the bipartisan so-called “Problem Solvers Caucus,” sponsored by the nonprofit group No Labels.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

But if lawmakers really want to reassure cynical Americans, whose disdain for Congress is well documented, they could highlight the genuine cooperation among them. This collaboration is happening across a number of issues, but it’s not bipartisanship; it’s “transpartisanship.” Unlike bipartisanship, which often takes two existing viewpoints and, effectively, splits the difference, transpartisanship encourages solutions that can align with many viewpoints.

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This Week in ‘Nation’ History: ‘Dr. Strangelove’ as ‘a Cold Blade of Scorn Against the Spectator’s Throat’

Dr. Strangelove publicity photo

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Publicity Photo. (Flickr)

From today’s nearly unanimous approval of Stanley Kubrick’s disturbing satire, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, one could scarcely guess that its release fifty years ago this week prompted a widespread national debate, the vigor of which the conversation in recent months about The Wolf of Wall Street barely even approaches. In a February 2, 1964, review headlined, “Is Nothing Sacred?” the conservative New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that the film’s “sportive speculation about a matter of gravest consequence seems more malicious than diverting, more charged with poison than wit…. The whole thing, while cleverly written and most skillfully directed and played, tends to be a bit too contemptuous of our defense establishment for my comfort and taste.”

Robert Hatch, The Nation’s longtime film critic, prized his precious comfort somewhat less than Crowther, and had less squeamish taste, but his February 3, 1964 review of Dr. Strangelove reflected similar qualms, while recognizing that Kubrick—together with screenwriter Terry Southern (a frequent Nation contributor in the early 1960s and late 1980s) and the great Peter Sellers—had created nothing less than a masterpiece. Hatch appreciated that the disruption to the viewer’s comfort was intrinsic to the very point and power of the film. “The spectacle of George Scott salivating over the prospect of destroying every human being east of the Danube at the cost of only a few million American lives is a tour de force in nausea,” he wrote.

Hatch, of course, had no illusions that Dr. Strangelove’s forceful truth-telling would profoundly change the terms of the Cold War.

Mr. Kubrick is a bold man: he has taken a whole complex of America’s basic assumptions by the shoulders and given them a rough shaking. And he has done it in a rough style that pays little heed to camera niceties or the normal luxury of commercial filmmaking, but throws all its emphasis on bravado acting and rapid, uncompromising melodrama. The picture sometimes falters into too obvious gags…but overall it holds a cold blade of scorn against the spectator’s throat.

The danger is that it will be cheered by the people who already agree with it and resented by those still unconverted. Kubrick can argue with good logic that if you are to expose the fallacy of depending on the hydrogen bomb as the last bastion of a free society, you must also expose the ignorance of bigotry that invents and fosters such nonsense. But he and Terry Southern take a pleasure in flaying their contemporaries that may be more effective as sadistic humor than as adult education.

Fifty years removed from its release and with the Cold War twenty-five years behind us, it’s clear that Dr. Strangelove succeeded—and still succeeds—at being both. As friend-of-the-magazine and contributor Eric Schlosser writes in a brilliant blog post for The New Yorker:

Half a century after Kubrick’s mad general, Jack D. Ripper, launched a nuclear strike on the Soviets to defend the purity of “our precious bodily fluids” from Communist subversion, we now know that American officers did indeed have the ability to start a Third World War on their own. And despite the introduction of rigorous safeguards in the years since then, the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation hasn’t been completely eliminated.

The idea of abolishing nuclear weapons from the American arsenal was raised in Jonathan Schell’s groundbreaking report, The Gift of Time, published in a special 1998 issue of The Nation and later as a book. It has been endorsed in recent years by former secretary of defense William Perry, former senator Sam Nunn, and former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz—the so-called “four horsemen of the nuclear apocalypse”—and by President Barack Obama in his Prague speech of 2009. If the 100th anniversary of Dr. Strangelove is to be celebrated in 2064, the abolition of nuclear weapons must assume a central place on the national agenda.

For more on the anniversary, read Greg Mitchell’s blog post “As ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Turns 50: Vast Nuclear Dangers Remain.”

* * *

Subscribers to The Nation can access our fully searchable digital archive, which contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to July 6, 1865.

‘We Can’t Wait’ for Congress

President Obama, AP Photo

(AP Photo)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” President Obama told his cabinet, announcing that he wouldn’t just be “waiting for legislation” from the obstructionist Congress to push his agenda. The announcement buoyed progressives, who have long urged the president to act boldly on his own authority, and provided new fuel for right-wing fulminations about “dictatorship” and “tyranny.”

To kick off the strategy, Obama traveled last week to North Carolina to launch one of his “manufacturing innovation hubs”, convened university presidents to talk about making college more affordable; announced the first group of “promise zones”, designed to focus federal attention on at risk communities; and scheduled a meeting with CEOs to gain commitments to hiring the long-term unemployed.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Obama’s pledge echoes his “We Can’t Wait” campaign leading into the 2012 elections, in which the president similarly announced a range of executive initiatives. That effort mostly demonstrated how difficult it is for any executive action to gain public attention.

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This Week in ‘Nation’ History: What We Wrote About Olympic Boycotts in 1936 and 1980

1936 Olympics in Berlin

The Olympic torch is carried into the Berlin stadium, at the start of the 1936 Olympic Games. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)


Next week The Nation will publish a special issue on the upcoming Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, where homophobic legislation, suppression of dissent and unprecedented corruption threaten to make these perhaps the most politically contentious Olympic games since Berlin in 1936. While we do not believe a boycott of the Olympics is the most effective way to pressure the Russian government to reform—indeed, a far more impactful way would be to follow the example of John Carlos (interviewed by Dave Zirin in the issue), whose photogenic disruption, with Tommie Smith, of the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, remains a lasting symbol of athletic civil disobedience—writers in The Nation did support past boycotts in a last-resort attempt to refuse complicity with repression and in the belief that boycotts further the cause of progressive change.

The ultimately unsuccessful movement to boycott the 1936 Olympics was enthusiastically endorsed in a August 1935 Nation editorial under the unequivocal title, “Boycott the Olympics!”. Arguing that such an action “would constitute a reproof which would echo throughout the world and even penetrate the sound-proofed barricade of the Nazi censorship,” the editors wrote:

The simple truth is that, despite official protestations, sport is no more free in Germany than are speech and political activity. Interested groups of Americans should bend every effort to draw our teams out of the games. A boycott of the Olympics would touch the Nazi government in two very tender spots—its prestige and its pocket-book.

The great radical journalist and Nation columnist Heywood Broun agreed that the United States should boycott the Olympic games, but argued in favor of holding local referenda in the US on the subject to ensure democratic support. “Boycotts of one sort or another have certain dangers,” Broun acknowledged, noting, as I have written regarding a boycott of the Sochi Olympics, that they too often hurt precisely those (the athletes) they are intended to help. “But in the case of the Olympic games a decision can be made by the American people themselves. It really is a gesture from the masses of one country to the masses of another.”

Broun went on to urge that another venue—“some place where there was no trace of anti-Semitism whatsoever”—be found to host the games instead of the Third Reich. But, Broun lamented, the United States would have to count itself out:

I wish it were possible that America might assume the role of host and say to the athletes of the world, “Come here for your competition, to America, the land of liberty, the melting pot, the place of refuge for all people. Here the youth of the world can compete in sportsmanship and amity. With us the best mile runner is the best mile runner regardless of any question of race or religion or political point of view.”

“I wish we could say that,” Broun lamented, noting why it would not be true.

Another movement to boycott the Olympics came in 1980, when the United States opted out of participation in the Moscow games to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Former director of the American Civil Liberties Union Aryeh Neier, who was born in Nazi Germany the year after the Berlin Olympics, wrote in “The Wrong Reason” (February 9, 1980) that he supported the boycott but as a protest against Russian human rights abuses, not because of the invasion of Afghanistan. The argument offered by the Carter administration, Neier wrote, was hypocritical:

Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan must be condemned, though Jimmy Carter’s protestations would have come with better grace if he had acknowledged its parallels to American military intervention in small countries like Cambodia. But I would favor going to the Olympics despite my revulsion against what the Soviet Union is doing in Afghanistan. I believe that peaceful contacts between peoples are desirable, and taking part in the Olympics would be no endorsement of the invasion, especially if some of the athletes and spectators going to Moscow could be persuaded to take part in a protest demonstration in Red Square.

“A boycott of the Olympics to protest persecution of human-rights activists in the Soviet Union is a different matter,” Neier continued, citing evidence that Russia was rounding up and expelling from Moscow any dissidents that might threaten the image of order and consent it wished to project. Of the January 1980 arrest and forced displacement of Andrei Sakharov, Neier wrote that

his exile made it close to a clean sweep; the Soviet Union has eliminated nearly all opportunities for visitors to the Olympic Games to talk to dissenters. These dissenters have been forced to suffer arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and exile simply because the Olympic Games are being held in Moscow; therefore, a boycott is clearly appropriate.

Although the boycott is instead going forward for President Carter’s reasons, there might still be a way to convey the message that it is intolerable that the Olympic Games should be used as an occasion to repress human rights. If alternate games are held, they could be called the Sakharov Games and the medals to be distributed could bear the likeness of Andrei Sakharov. Those would be prizes worth winning.

Unlike in 1980, Russia’s reprehensible law banning “propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations” was not passed in anticipation of or preparation for the Olympics—though anticipation of the games was certainly a factor in the December amnesty granting freedom to political prisoners like former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and two imprisoned members of Pussy Riot. In 2014, participation in the Sochi games—including taking advantage of the unprecedented platform for activism it provides—will be far more effective than a boycott ever could be.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Check out our upcoming issue next week for reporting by Dave Zirin on LGBT and corruption issues; Alec Luhn reporting from Sochi; former Olympian Samantha Retrosi on corporate ownership of athletes; and much more.

* * *

Subscribers to The Nation can access our fully searchable digital archive, which contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to July 6, 1865.

Bill de Blasio’s Persuasive Case for Universal Pre-K

de Blasio

(AP Photo/New York Daily News, Enid Alvarez/Pool)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Last week, as New York found itself in the icy grip of the polar vortex, another deep freeze seemed to be settling over the Empire State—this time between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio—and crystallizing two competing visions for the future of the Democratic Party.

First came dueling news conferences last Monday. Cuomo stood before the Albany press corps, announcing his plan to cut taxes by $2 billion, while de Blasio was in a Harlem classroom, joined by a bevy of labor leaders who pledged their support for his signature policy initiative: funding universal pre-K for 4-year-olds (and after-school programs for all middle schoolers) by increasing the income taxes of New Yorkers making over $500,000 a year by about a half-percentage point.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

This plan, central to de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, reflects growing evidence, as I’ve written previously, that high-quality, universal access to pre-K can make a significant difference in the lives of children, especially those from low-income families.

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This Week in ‘Nation’ History: The Passion of Amiri Baraka

Amiri Baraka 1972

Amiri Baraka speaks during the Black Political Convention in Gary, Indiana on March 12, 1972. (AP Photo/Julian C. Wilson)

The brilliant and controversial poet, playright and activist Amiri Baraka, formerly known as LeRoi Jones, died on Thursday at age 79. In works like the poetry collection Preface to a Twenty Volume Suicide Note (1961), the social history Blues People (1963) and the play Dutchman (1964), Jones celebrated the cultural achievements and the dignity of African-Americans while unblinkingly exposing the grave injustice of this country’s condescending attitude towards and often-brutal treatment of his people. A complicated figure, Baraka has also been criticized for elements of anti-Semitism, misogyny and homophobia in his works. As the poet E. Ethelbert Miller, chairman of the board of the Institute for Policy Studies and a friend of The Nation, wrote in e-mail message:

“One cannot talk about black literature, black politics, black music, black theater or even blackness without mentioning the name Amiri Baraka…. He was controversial at times because he was passionate and the times and our social condition demanded nothing less. Baraka taught us how to examine our beauty as well as our ugliness.

The Nation was one of the first major publications to publish Baraka’s work, beginning with poems like “The Invention of Comics” in 1962, “After the Ball” and “Tight Rope” in 1963, and “Morning Purpose” in 1964, and our critics kept a close watch on his work. In a review of Dutchman in April 1964, longtime Nation drama critic Harold Clurman called Baraka, then LeRoi Jones, “an outstanding dramatist” and “a turbulent talent,” noting, but not regretting, the troubling excesses which would later make his work so controversial. “While turbulence is not always a sign of power or of valuable meaning,” Clurman wrote, “I have a hunch that LeRoi Jones’s fire will burn ever higher and clearer if our theatre can furnish an adequate vessel to harbor his flame. We need it.”

Baraka’s most memorable contribution to The Nation was the essay “In the Ring” (June 29, 1964), about the fight between Cassius Clay and defending world champion Sonny Liston at Miami Beach that February. Later included in the collection Burning All Illusions: Writings from The Nation on Race, edited by Paula Giddings, the piece represents the best of Baraka’s writing.

The mock contest [in 1962 and 1963] between Liston and Patterson was a ‘brushfire’ limited war, Neo-Colonial policy to confuse the issue. Patterson was to represent the fruit of the missionary ethic; he had found God, reversed his underprivileged (uncontrolled) violence, and turned it to work for the democratic liberal imperialist state. The hardy black Horatio Alger offering the glad hand of integration to welcome 20 million into the lunatic asylum of white America.

In this context, Liston the unreformed, Liston the vulgar, Liston the violent, comes on as the straightup Heavy (who still had to make some gesture at the Christian ethic, like the quick trip to the Denver priest before the match, to see if somehow the chief whitie could turn him into a regular fella). “They” painted Liston Black. They painted Patterson White. And that was the simple conflict. Which way would the black man go? This question traveled on all levels through the society, if anyone remembers. Pollsters wanted the colored man in the street’s opinion. “Sir, who do you hope comes out on top in this fight?” A lot of Negroes said Patterson. That old hope come back on you, that somehow this is my country, and ought’n I be allowed to live in it, I mean, to make it. From the bottom to the top? Only the poorest black men have never fallen at least temporarily for the success story. And the poor whites still fall hard.…

The match meant most to the Liberal Missionaries. It was a chance to test their handiwork against this frightening brute. So a thin-willed lower-middle-class American was led to beatings just short of actual slaughter. Twice. And each time Patterson fell, a vision came to me of the whole colonial West crumbling in some sinister silence, like the across-the-tracks House of Usher…

But Liston, Jones wrote, “is the big strong likable immigrant who has always done America’s chores. He’s glad to oblige.”

That leaves us with Cassius X. Back in the days when he was still Clay it was easy to see him as a boy manufactured by the Special Products Division of Madison Avenue. Now I think of him as merely a terribly stretched out young man with problems one hoped would have waited at least for him to reach full manhood. Clay is not a fake, and even his blustering and playground poetry are valid; they demonstrate that a new and more complicated generation has moved onto the scene. And in this last sense Clay is definitely my man. However, his choice of Elijah Muhammad over Malcolm X (if indeed such is the case) means that he is still a ‘homeboy,’ embracing the folksy vector straight out of the hard spiritualism of poor Negro aspiration. Cassius is right now just angry rather than intellectually (socio-politically) motivated.…

So what kind of men are these who practice such deception on themselves? Oh, they are simply Americans, and some years from now, perhaps there will be this short addition: “you remember them, don’t you?”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

In 1999, The Nation reprinted a speech Baraka had given at NYU the previous year at a memorial service for the poet Margaret Walker Alexander, who, Baraka said,

remains part of our deepest and most glorious voice, dimensioned by history and musicked by vision. What she tells us in her books, with that voice of sun and sky, moon and stars, of lightning and thunder, is in that oldest voice of that first ancestor, who always be with us. That is what we people have, inside, to reach where Orpheus goes each night-end to raise the day again. That voice to keep us live and sane and strong and ready to fight and even ready to love.

* * *

Subscribers to The Nation can access our fully searchable digital archive, which contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to July 6, 1865.

Syndicate content