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.
He is the author of two books, A Colony in a Nation (W.W. Norton & Company, 2017) and Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy (Crown Publishing Group, 2012). Chris grew up in the Bronx, graduated from Brown University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy.
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?
Turns out the original seven deadly sins were just the tip of the iceberg. In a globalized era, says the Vatican, we have to consider that sin isn't only individual, but societal. According to the updated list just released at a seminar hosted by the Apostolic Penitentiary (fun name, no?), these sins include new vices such as violating others' fundamental human rights, inflicting poverty, accumulating excessive wealth and environmental pollution.
That's not to say that the original sins aren't still relevant. As the Papal University's Father Gerald O'Collins notes, "One of the original deadly sins is sloth--disengagement and not getting involved....People collaborate simply by doing nothing."
Should make for some interesting conversational fodder when Benedict XVI arrives at the White House this April.
Matt thinks so. (Though it's also worth noting that the entire Wright controversy was set in motion via a few choice soundbites.)
Speaking of which, years ago, Mitchell Stephens observed that the catch-all critique of soundbites frequently obscures the real issue at hand: the media's habitual brevity and lack of depth in its analysis. Yes, in 1968, presidential candidates got an average of 43 seconds to uninterruptedly expound their views, while in 2004, the candidates got an average of 7.8 seconds. But Stephens argues that rather than attacking soundbites alone, it might make more sense to focus on the need for reporters' greater rigor in their question-asking. Longer soundbites "would not necessarily elevate television news or political discourse in general, and better use of short ones might." After all, it's as easy for a politician to drivel on without saying anything for 43 seconds as it is for eight.
A friend of mine just sent me some new (graphic) photos from Tibet, including additional images from Monday protests in Kathmandu.
While sometimes Chinese attempts at suppressing information are goofy (for example, putting white stickers over the section of Lonely Planets sold in Beijing that describes the Tiannamen Square massacre), in the case of domestic information about Tibet, such efforts have been effective and nearly monolithic. Accordingly, what's frightening here is the fact that as much as China has changed in recent decades, on territorial--and highly emotional--issues like Tibet and Taiwan, the conversation has not budged.
Last fall for a brief moment during Burma's "saffron revolution," we heard a lot about the power of the Internet to undermine repressive regimes. Yet the lesson of cases like Burma and Tibet is, more than anything, that the flowering of the Internet is hardly a proxy for some kind of velvet coup from within. Fiberoptic cables can't stop dictatorships; major trading partners can (or can try).
Congress is out on spring break until the end of the month, so here at J Street we won't be posting our regular weekly previews and round-ups of legislative action.