Nicole Sanders

Adapt or Die?

We know the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires. Some blame government agencies for insufficiently resourcing fire departments. They are approaching the problem from the wrong perspective. Yes, more money should have gone to fire departments because of climate change. But how much money does any one municipality have to spend on “adaptation” or “mitigation” efforts? LA has some of the best fire-fighting apparatuses in the world–with helicopters comparable to military aircraft and pilots with experience in night time combat flying. The Santa Ana winds downed these elite helicopters, and even the most experienced pilots. Without aircraft, firefighters tried to contain fires moving with hurricane force winds by hand. The Santa Ana winds would have overrun the best resourced fire department. When it came to the fires, there was no way to adapt to climate change. People died.

The risks of wildfire are well known to the people of the affected communities. While many people have lost everything through no fault of their own, the environmental movement has been raising alarm bells about building in fire prone areas for decades. Not all, but some of these homes, many of the very rich, should never have been built in the first place. If the municipal fire departments resources are insufficient, they need to not spend them trying to save the homes of people who logically made poor choices–who knew the risk of building in a fire prone area in an era of climate change. Although I feel for the people who have lost everything, this is a man-made, not “natural” disaster. For years, we have known that climate change was coming, we knew it would bring wildfires, and we knew what places would be prone to wildfires. People built anyways.

Rather than being able to adapt, communities like Altedena, and the people who live in them, may die. The winter rains failing and the Santa Ana winds being stronger may become the new normal. Exactly how often can this fire-prone area experience this kind of devastation? Especially when we consider not only the homes lost and the incredible emotional and psychological toll taken, but the disruption of the economy: price gouging, looting, an exacerbation of a housing crisis, the many, mostly immigrant, businesses who relied on these communities as a market for services from house cleaning to lawn care.

And there is the most obvious long term disruption–the insurance market. There seems to be no good way to stabilize the housing insurance market. One way or another, whether through direct payments to their policyholders or an assessment from Cal-fire, insurance companies in California are facing huge financial losses, and are withdrawing from California.

Today, President Trump pulled America out of the Paris Climate Accords. He says it will save $1 trillion dollars. Also today, the National Weather Service again issued its highest alert for fire danger. In the end, we will not be able to adapt to climate change. We will have to live with its destruction. And people will die.

The Limits of Martyrdom

Trump seems to have gotten away with it. However, over time and with careful pressure there is hope yet that Trump’s legal troubles–and some kind of accountability–will follow him into his next term. There is hope that the accumulation of legal problems will undercut Trump’s real or perceived mandate to govern. Eventually, something will stick. Trump has vulnerabilities or he wouldn’t be fighting every attempt to have the truth come out.

Trump displayed his weakness when he felt he had to go after a legacy news agency for misstating the difference between “sexual abuse” and “rape” in reference to E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit. His need to parse words, and to defame Carrol, shows that he is not as invulnerable as he wants us to believe. His moral troubles may prove more resilient than his purely legal ones. E Jean Carrol is still bravely moving forward with her suit. Her’s is perhaps the most important because it calls Trump out for what he is–morally bankrupt and concerned only with escaping accountability.

Trump has famously claimed that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it. But that doesn’t mean he can do whatever he wants for any length of time. Eventually, what he does will catch up with him. Granted, there may be a group of people surrounding him that are so fanatically dedicated to him that nothing will cause them to change their minds. But the people who got him into the white house were not that fanatically devoted to him. They gave into his lies about how he could and would improve their lives. Trump’s claim, for instance, that he would lower the price of groceries. This is actually an economic impossibility. Deflation is the worst thing that can happen to an economy. What needs to happen is for real wages to rise enough for incomes to catch up to prices. This will occur on its own–Trump or no Trump.

So, there is a group of people with whom Trump is very vulnerable. The question is how to reach them–or maybe what to reach them with. It is a matter of finding what matters to the right people at the right time. And that takes really understanding why people voted for Trump in the first place. It takes getting your head around why all of this man’s immorality did not disqualify him in the minds of average American voters.

One thing is for sure, an unconditional discharge isn’t going to help; it is a major setback. It puts to rest something that should have followed Trump into the White House. But even with an unconditional discharge, Trump is still a felon. And we do have a report by the special council saying that he would have been convicted. That is not nothing. And it is telling what lengths Trump has gone to to suppress it. It shows us that there are limits to his ability to cast himself as a martyr oppressed by the deep state.

The Hard Way

We need to deal with China. The war in Ukraine goes on. We need a decision about how to support them. Gaza is a mess. At home, another school shooting; we need movement on gun violence. Too many children are in poverty. Having health insurance doesn’t guarantee access. We need answers now.

Meanwhile, Congress argues about who owns a stadium, when ethanol can be used, and whether or not to give themselves a pay raise. Never mind the destruction of two hurricanes and a host of smaller but important climate related disasters. Never mind that the farm bill is six years old because Republicans want to balance the budget by having yet more children go hungry in America. With all the problems the country faces even the simplest things cannot be worked out in a bipartisan fashion. And even if they are, if Elon Musk thinks it’s a bad idea, nobody dare vote for it.

We are headed for yet another government shutdown. This time around I don’t think I even care if it’s averted. I am too fed up to give a damn. Some of the things in the bill are real points of contention: child care, pharmacy benefit managers, aid to family farmers. But as much as I agree with those goals, now is not the moment. Pass the continuing resolution. Show a willingness to move forward despite having to make concessions and let the Republicans be the ones who killed the bill for no good reason whatsoever.

There are many times to fight; and there are many ways to fight at this time, but the CR is not one of the times, and is not the way to fight. It is tempting to want things that will be difficult or impossible to get later. But progressives have an opportunity to make it clear that it is the Republicans who are refusing to move forward, that they are the source of gridlock in Washington. Better to make some sacrifices now and have a better chance of defeating the Republicans in two years. If we can show the American people that the Republicans are walking away from a bi-partisan effort simply because a billionaire thinks it a bad idea, we can show the American people they made a mistake in electing the Republicans in the first place.

Let Johnson contend with his party. Let them look like the fools they are. The achilles heel of the MAGA movement is that they cannot govern. Compounding their problem is that they have made promises that cannot conceivably be kept. For instance, the price of groceries does not go down. This is an economic fact. Deflation is actually the worst thing that can happen to an economy.

Eventually, enough will be enough with the chaos and people will begin to regret their vote. Maybe backing down on the CR sounds like the hard way, but sometimes the hard way is the best way, and sometimes it is the only way.

Old Mistakes and a New Syria

It is a time of both hope and uncertainty for the Syrian people. Assad is gone and the international community has an opportunity to strike a blow against terrorism around the world. But will the ones taking over take over–will they even be able to hold onto power? For now the rebel groups seem content to work under the leadership of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), but when the legislative process begins will they be able to hold a diverse country together?

According to Trump and the doctrine of “America First,” what is going on in Syria does not affect America. But “America First” really means “America Only” i.e. America alone in the world.

The problem with isolationism is that in the modern real world there’s no way for any one country to live in isolation from events in another. If the US and the international community don’t act, Syria may very well become yet another base of international terrorism. We can bring stability to Syria now, or we can be forced into a foreign war when a terrorist threat we absolutely cannot ignore develops. Not acting in Syria risks yet another failed state and yet another forever war. Skillful diplomacy and engagement can prevent not only the next conflict in Syria, but help put an end to conflicts throughout the region.

Furthermore, if the US wants to have legitimacy on the world stage it has to take the moral high ground, and make human rights a priority. Otherwise, “America First” will mean “America Alone–” isolated and without the political capital it needs during the next crisis.

America is at a moment when it risks making the same mistake it has made time and time again. We know this story. International pressure and wars against terrorists have finally brought down a dictator. But the absence of a governing force proves even more devastating than authoritarianism. With the war over, will we lose the peace? Right now the international community doesn’t seem to know what to make of the rebel forces. HTS started the business of running the country, and that certainly is a good sign. But no one seems to know for sure whether they are inclusive and relatively moderate or yet another Islamist regime in the Middle East.

What worries me the most is that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seems to be having an identity crisis of its own. America and the international community cannot afford to lose this opportunity to apply the pressure necessary to ensure that HTS understands that it is in its interests to pursue a moderate agenda, and to keep any hard-liners within its ranks away from power. HTS has a history of being a terrorist organization. That doesn’t necessarily mean it has to have a future as a terrorist organization.

Truly putting “America First” means understanding that what happens in other parts of the world affects us here at home. It is a simple reality of the modern world that cannot ever be avoided.

What to do about Kash Patel?

Given Trump’s pick to head the FBI, it is clear we are in for a long four years. The most important thing is to get ready to fight. But fight how? What are progressives–and for that matter conservatives and moderates who care about democracy–going to do about this sycophantic lackey?

Much attention has been given to the prospect of intensive litigation, and that has its place. But litigation alone will not be enough with a Supreme Court stacked with Trump appointees. Litigation will be hard when the opposition knows that if they appeal to the highest court in the land they will win, and progressive organizations will be out tremendous amounts of money on failed legal efforts.

That isn’t to say we should all throw our hands up and sink into despair. Trump is unwilling and incapable of delivering on promises to fix what is broken in the American government. Instead, MAGA embodies dysfunction: hyperpartisanship, an unwillingness to go about the business of government, caring about one’s own power above what is best for one’s constituents, gridlock. This is MAGA’S Achilles heel.

Patel will never deliver on his promises to reform. Instead, he will compound the dysfunction he says he is prepared to eliminate. When it becomes clear that reform is not a part of his agenda, we need to be there to make sure the world, and I mean the whole world, knows it. With the American people distracted with polarization, international pressure may become a critical component of any resistance against a second Trump presidency.

It begins now. As the nomination process moves forward, it is abundantly clear that “reform” is a smokescreen. We know Patel exists solely to carry out Trump’s bidding. The question is how to convey that message in a meaningful and convincing way. This sounds simple enough, but in actuality it will prove to be very difficult, demanding work. But it can and must be done. The point is to start the conversation and start the conversation as quickly as possible.

We need to frame the argument in simple terms–MAGA and Patel are a future disaster for the functioning of the American government. Eventually, Patel will prove inept. Patel will weaken the ability of the FBI to do its job. He will create chaos, or worse yet so distract the Bureau as to make it impossible for them to do their job. An institution Americans both rely on and take for granted will be hobbled. Patel’s “reforms” are going to further weaken an agency the American people rely on in their everyday lives. When the Bureau just isn’t there, people will think twice about Trump’s promises.

Right now, the American electorate is distracted with a disconnect between what the numbers and economists say and the realities of people’s economic lives. But they are taking their institutions for granted. When the real-world consequences of an appointment like Patel’s hit, many Americans will begin to regret their vote.

Left, Right, Forward, and Backward

As Democrats commence with an “autopsy” of their defeat by Donald Trump and his lackeys, over and over it is being said that part of the problem is that Democrats took a position “too far to the left” on the issue of transgender rights. The goals of the Democratic party were not in step with the political middle of America. They should have staked out a position less “extreme.” There is something to be said for the idea that Democrats’ standing up for transgender rights helped Donald Trump win the White House. The most effective ads against Kamala Harris were the ones that targeted her support for a tiny but increasingly important minority.

Having said that, there is no “left” when supporting transgender rights. Either you do or you don’t. Admittedly, Kamala Harris was between a rock and a hard place. Supporting transgender rights may have cost her the election. Not supporting transgender rights would be a betrayal of everything that the Democrats were fighting for in the first place.

If the transgender community were really asking for “extreme” things–a.k.a. incremental progress–I might feel differently. I might say take the fight one step at time and be patient. Changing hearts and minds takes time. But that was not what was at stake in this election cycle. Transgender people are under attack from all sides. People are having to move out of state to get health care. The simple act of having to go to the bathroom is now a contentious issue. Increasingly, transgender people do not feel safe. More importantly, the people in the business of making them feel safe are being criminalized. People fail to connect to the reality of how unsafe any environment, even a home environment, can be for transgender people. This is not a “cultural” issue. It is a bigotry issue.

The reality of it is there is a serious and frightening backlash against the progress transgender people have made over the last generation. If Kamala Harris wanted to campaign on not going back, she could not and should not have ignored the need for people to stand up for transgender rights. People are not supporting bills to roll back transgender rights because they are “more moderate.” They are rolling back transgender rights because a small but vocal minority has been extremely successful at reigniting familiar tropes and stereotypes about transgender people. The mood of the nation is moving backward. The American electorate is regressing. The legislation that has been passed is predicated on ridiculous myths and conspiracy theories. Transgender people are “grooming” children. They are predators in locker rooms. My favorite one was the Trump campaign’s claim that schools were facilitating sex change operations for transgender teens without parental permission or knowledge, something universally regarded as unethical.

This kind of rhetoric is about making transgender people targets of discrimination, exclusion, and hate. Ultimately, there is no right or left to transgender rights. There is forward–and there is backward.

A Question of Character

Is Trump a fascist? This seems to be the perennial question. But it is not the most important question. Time and again, I am struck by how, if you stop and think, the conflicts around Trump have nothing to do with ideology. It is important to not treat Trump as an ideolog. That isn’t to say that he isn’t racist and transphobic. It’s to say that his bigotry is not part of a cohesive set of arguments. It is his personal prejudices combined with what he thinks is politically salient at any one given time and place. His ideology is whatever he thinks it needs to be at that moment. If we can hold out any hope for the next four years it is that Trump has said he believes anything and promised to do anything that mobilizes his base in the moment. When it comes time to make good on those promises, it may prove harder than he thinks. More importantly, the time may come when he has to prove that he truly believes the things he has said he believes. It may become clear to those people whose ideas he has pledged loyalty to that he believes in nothing but his own desire for power.

People say they like Trump’s policies even as they don’t like his character. This is a cop out. Character is central to democracy. Actually, it’s impossible to have a properly functioning democracy when citizens and representatives lose sight of the fact that leaders in a democracy need to have certain moral characteristics. No amount of checks and balances will protect a democracy if an entire party, or half of the electorate, abdicate their responsibility to ensure they support someone who holds basic democratic values. This isn’t to, as they say, “blame the electorate.” It is to point out that something has gone fundamentally wrong with the way America selects its leaders. In our hyper-partisan environment, on both sides, character has taken a back seat to political litmus tests. People have come to care only about a handful of divisive issues and not the big picture–the person they are helping to elect. Political “nose holding” has become a way of life at the expense of American democracy.

What is at stake is just how screwed up the character of Trump and those that surround him really are. Take Hegseth, for instance. What is most relevant is not what philosophical approach he is going to take as Secretary of Defense. He is dangerous because he doesn’t have the character to serve his country. He faces serious allegations of rape, and, perhaps even more importantly, has supported armed service personnel convicted of war crimes. They can talk all they want, but in the end MAGA is a movement that cares nothing about the character of the people it sends to the government that is supposed to be serving the people. And that is just plain wrong. It is undemocratic. Since when did character not count?

A Forgotten Fight

While everybody, rationally, sits around trying not to panic about the next Trump presidency, and the possibility of a MAGA trifecta, something else is getting lost in the headlines–the issue of banned books. However bad the next four years are going to be, the next Trump presidency will pass. Four years from now we will have a chance to make a new start, hopefully having learned a few lessons from what we did wrong.

The biggest problem with the new Trump presidency may well be the way it will galvanize grassroots efforts, which ultimately have more impact on our everyday lives than legislation passed in Washington. And when it comes to banned books we are dealing with the most important thing we have–our future, our kids. Laws can be rewritten. Regulations can be overturned in court. The things that happen at a national level we can protest. But when it comes to books the harm is irreparable. It cannot be undone, and it will last far, far into the future. The most important thing, for any movement, is its future, its ability to teach its children.

It is not an accident that 7 of the 10 most banned books contain content pertaining to sexual minorities. We risk losing a generation of youth to ignorance and shame because our young people are being denied access to what they need to better understand their sexuality, whatever their orientation or identity. It is just as important for hetrosexual cis gender young people to be exposed to literature that can help them understand the experiences of sexual minority youth. And it is most important for parents to have a guide to understand their LGBTQ children. It is the only way to break the cycle and change the culture in ways that will end transphobia. And the people calling for book bans know this.

Underneath all the ranting and raving about parental control is a desire to roll back the clock on changes encouraging inclusion and allowing issues such as gender identity to become normalized within society. It is no longer strange for a child to have two parents of the same sex. There is now open conversation about the concept of being non-binary. Well known journalists are not only out as gay but married and talking about it openly on the evening news. More than anything, more and more young people have become comfortable with the idea that they personally might be LGBTQ.

The book Gender Queer by Maia Kobe is a perfect example of why not to ban a book. It is a moving personal story with great literary value. If my emotionally mature older teenager was questioning their sexual identity or orientation and wanted to read this book I would certainly support their decision. However, there is a space for real objections to this book. It deals with sexual themes in ways that logically may be considered overly explicit. I, personally, might not read it simply because I disagree with that content. But that’s the point–if I feel offended, I don’t have to read it. I don’t have the right to restrict other people’s right to read it because I object. I am not a parent, but if I had a kid it would be hard for me to know when my child was mature enough to handle the content. The argument that this book is not for children is entirely valid. The author never intended it as a book for young teenagers. It is quite admittedly a book for older teens and adults. If my teenager came home with the book I might have a long conversation about how old and how emotionally mature my kid was. But it is not my local librarian’s job to parent my teenager. Parents should have the primary role in what their kids read. It’s the job of parents, not the job of the state, to instill values about sexuality in young people. If someone really thinks it’s pornographic, teach your kid that the sexual content violates your values. If your teenager doesn’t listen and reads the book anyways, that means you have work to do as a parent, not that your local librarian is a criminal.

The world has changed. The attitudes of young people have changed with it. One thing I found interesting looking at the plot lines of several of these books is that even though they contain content about sexual minorities, they don’t necessarily focus on it. For the modern young adult reader, issues of sexual orientation and gender identity are just another part of the plot line–just as issues of sexual orientation and gender identity are an accepted part of their everyday lives. That is what the book banners cannot stand. And that is what is worth fighting for.

When Will Climate Change Hit Home?

We have all seen the devastation–in the same place twice in two weeks. One member of a mobile home community–who is thinking of just picking up stakes and leaving–said it best, “Planet earth is really messed up right now.” Home insurance has sky-rockted. People who don’t live anywhere near a hurricane still have difficulty getting it at all, much less getting it at a price they can afford. FEMA is beginning to be stretched thin. It is having to pull people from other agencies because it doesn’t have enough people with the right expertise to handle not only back-to-back hurricanes but a host of climate related disasters.

And, it is not as if we do not know it is climate related. Scientist after scientist, climate model after climate model, not only predicted this would happen but can show how it is happening now.

And it is not as if hurricanes are the only evidence. I live in Iowa, quintessential rural Midwest, a place that is not supposed to be hit hard by climate change. But climate change has reached here, too, far away from hurricanes. My state has some of the most fertile soils in the world–and no rain to go with them.

My mother is, in some sense, a climate refugee. When my family moved into my childhood home in the very early 80’s there were some issues with flooding. The entire neighborhood sat in a floodplain. A dyke had been built. Later a dam was added. But over time flooding became a yearly or several times a year occurrence. We were having once-in-50-year-events every other year. The historic floods of 2008 were the last straw in what had been a series of catastrophic floods. Flood insurance simply no longer made sense. FEMA bought everybody out. The houses were torn down and Mother Nature took back what was her’s. It’s a green space now. Ours wasn’t the only neighborhood in my home town to meet this fate.

We all need, the world over, to start facing economic facts. It is estimated that the two recent hurricanes will cost $100 billion. We can’t afford it. Certainly we cannot afford it every other week. Difficult decisions about who can keep their homes will have to be made. Consequences will be felt. We cannot continue to delude ourselves into believing that climate change will not change our lives.

And, yet, in the middle of one of the tightest elections in recent memory, climate change is still not front and center. Not even with the devastation of back to back hurricanes has climate change become a top issue. Not that other issues are not important–reproductive rights, the war in Ukraine, the Middle East conflict. But as significant as these issues are, none pose so much an existential threat to the world as a whole as climate change.

So where are the intense debates about what to do next? Where are the prizes for scientific innovations that could get us to net zero faster? Where is holding corporate America to account? Where are the demands for systemic change? All of these exist. But they aren’t the first thing the candidates are talking about. Why?

Denial is a funny thing. Certainly there is the out and out denial that we are all used to. When it comes to some people, It is hard to think of any facts that they will ever accept. They are too fundamentally oriented to reject science. But there is a different, more insidious kind of denial. A belief that, “Yes, climate change may be important, but it is not as important as the cost of groceries and gas.”

This kind of denial can be seen in Boston’s “Innovation District”, which is soon to be an “Inundation District.” Boston has put $20 billion into seaport districts located on land built from landfill to just above high tide in the 19th century. Despite repeated problems with historic tidal flooding and storm surges the development goes on. More and more people are raising their voices, trying to convince their local government to accept the reality of climate change. Still, the building continues without regard to sea level rise; even as many residents can see the effects of climate change directly in front of them on a daily basis.

There is really only one answer, and that is to convince people that global warming will raise the price of groceries and gas. When worldwide food shortages spur inflation and the stores have no oranges because of climate-related citrus greening disease; when the cost of gas goes up because oil refineries flood during hurricanes even though they were built outside the 100-year floodplain–governments will be able to insulate the public from the effects of climate change only so long. Only by allowing people to feel the effects of climate change in their everyday lives can we make true progress. Now is that moment for governments to tell their people to connect the dots, to tell them in stark terms how climate change will and is affecting them personally, and not to shield them from it. It is a matter of there being a leader who has the moral courage to step forward and say it. It is a matter of what it will take for climate change to really hit home.

The Real Reason Joe Must Go

Let us start by saying that Joe Biden is a decent human being. He is full of empathy. He works hard and has developed the skills needed to be a great statesman. But after his disastrous debate performance, is it critical that he step aside now, and I mean today. That there is no one who could potentially step up to replace him is simply untrue. There are many people within the Democratic party who are capable of being a standard bearer even though they are much less well known. There is still time to introduce a candidate to the American people.

At this point, it is not simply a matter of age; it has become a matter of character. Joe Biden may be a decent guy, but even good people can be blinded by selfish pride. Joe Biden wouldn’t be acting the way that he is if he did not sincerely believe that he was the best man for the job, and that is exactly the problem. However good a person, he has succumbed to his selfish pride by convincing himself that he is best suited to take on Donald Trump. If he truly wanted to do what was right for the nation, he would accept that he is not the man for the job and bow out with grace. I am not suggesting in any way that Biden is selfishly holding onto power. I am saying that it is selfish of him to assume and to continually insist that he is the man to beat Trump. If he had more humility, he would admit that even if he can do the job, someone else could do it better.

He is minimizing his disastrous debate performance instead of it being a wake up call to himself and all involved that he simply has aged too much to commit to being able to carry out the office of the presidency for four more years. What he is going through is completely normal. Sometimes it is hard to breach the question “is this task harder for you than it once was?” It can seem insulting. We all know the story of adult children trying to convince their elderly parent that it’s time to turn in the car keys. This is what should be happening inside the Biden campaign. It’s hard. If Biden were even just 5 years younger I might feel differently, and there is nothing else to disqualify him as a candidate. It’s human. But with democracy at stake it is also wrong.

It is a sad way to end what should be remembered as an illustrious career. If he wins (which is now doubtful), he will not make it through his term as president. If he loses, he will be remembered as the man who wasn’t able to protect democracy, while the world braces for the horror of a second Trump term. Why not retire in dignity, accepting that he has served his nation the fullest of his capabilities?