Chris Hayes, Editor-at-Large of The Nation, hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday on MSNBC.
Previously, Hayes hosted the weekend program “Up w/ Chris Hayes,” which premiered in 2011. Prior to joining MSNBC as an anchor, Chris had previously served as a frequent substitute host for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.” Chris became a MSNBC contributor in 2010 and has been with The Nation since 2007.
He is a former Fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. From 2008-2010, he was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. From 2005 to 2006, Chris was a Schumann Center Writing Fellow at In These Times.
Since 2002, Hayes has written on a wide variety of political and social issues, from union organizing and economic democracy, to the intersection of politics and technology. His essays, articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Time, The Nation, The American Prospect, The New Republic, The Washington Monthly, the Guardian, and The Chicago Reader.
His first book, Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy, which is about the crisis of authority in American life, was published in June 2012. Chris grew up in the Bronx, graduated from Brown University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy.
I was just on a conservative talk radio show where the host accused the Obamas of being Marxists. Really! I told him I spend my whole time on the left and I literally know one Marxist. One! It's a fascinating trope of conservatism that despite the fact Marxism is more or less dead as a political movement they feel the need to keep red-baiting all these years later. What's up with that?
You really couldn't script this race any better: Jon Powers is a 29-year-old Iraq Veteran and substitute teacher who founded a nonprofit to serve Iraqi orphans. He's running to fill the just-vacated seat of Tom Reynolds (R-New York) -- who, among the many blushes of his career, voted for the Iraq War, voted against a series of 9/11 Commission recommendations to improve homeland security, and for years turned a blind eye to Mark Foley's proclivity for underage pages.
Powers faces a likely opponent in the self-financed millionaire, Jack Davis, who dismisses Powers' chances accordingly: "He's 29 years old, and he's never had a real job." (Because serving in Iraq and working as a substitute teacher don't count.)
With Reynolds' retirement, the tally of Republicans who have declined this year to run for reelection has hit 29.
"Moost unusual." That was how CNN chose to headline its coverage of anti-war coverage last week--a slightly more subtle variant of the newscast's ultimate message: "Wow, get a load of these freaks."
"There was a lot of dress-up among protesters," the anchor intones sardonically. And later, bemusedly: "This bike-riding protester played chicken with a bus!" Much of the footage is trained on one woman in New York, who is seen alternately engrossed in a sing-song chant, "Shock and awe!" and haranguing protesters for their opposition to the war.
No sign of the veterans who came out in force to protest, or the many family members who have lost loved ones in the conflict.
That's what Paul Krugman rightly wants to know. For months I've been struck by the jarring disconnect between the finance blogs I read, where people are basically screaming at the top of their lungs that the sky is falling, and the campaign blogs, where the financial crisis hardly makes an appearance. I think there are three (non mutually exclusive) reasons. One, which Krugman mentions, is that the crisis is deeply bewildering and the optimal policy is incredibly unclear. Two, there's probably some legitimate concern about the negative effect of a presidential candidate pointing out that the sky is in fact falling. Three, the candidates are largely funded by Wall St. and don't want to bring up the dreaded R word, regulation.
Elizabeth Spiers argues the Fed had to bail out Bear Stearns, because "the psychological repercussions of a Bear bankruptcy would have been even more devastating than the financial ones." Similar arguments proliferate: we had to bail out Wall Street to head off a "crisis of confidence."
Like most Americans, the contours of the current financial tailspin are many stories over my head. But that doesn't make the fact that our government just pumped in $200 billion in taxpayer money to secure Wall Street, then threw another $30 billion at Bear Stearns--after blocking the creation of tools for bankruptcy judges and states to address the mortgage crisis all last month--any harder to appreciate. Evidently, the psychological repercussions for the millions of Americans who have lost their homes don't really count.
This week, the scope of this disjunction left even the White House press corps incredulous. From a recent press briefing (and the transcript is worth reading in full):
As far as I can tell there are two main questions that need to be answered about the last eight years of American politics:
1) How was it that all of the institutions (the mainstream media, congress, the Fed, regulators) that should have prevented disaster (war, financial crisis) failed at the same time?
2) Why is it that now, particularly as regards to the war, but more broadly on a host of issue, the majority will of the people is not being translated into policy?