political

Colorado governor accuses Trump of playing ‘political games’ after disaster request denials

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis accused President Trump of playing “political games” Sunday after the federal government denied disaster declaration requests after wildfires and flooding in the state earlier this year.

Polis’ office said he received two denial letters from the Federal Emergency Management Agency late Saturday. The letters are in response to requests for major disaster declarations following wildfires and mudslides in August and what Polis had described as “historic flooding” across southwestern Colorado in October.

Polis and Colorado’s U.S. senators, fellow Democrats Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, decried the denials. Polis said the state would appeal.

“Coloradans impacted by the Elk and Lee fires and the flooding in Southwestern Colorado deserve better than the political games President Trump is playing,” he said in a statement.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said Trump responds to each request for federal disaster assistance “with great care and consideration, ensuring American tax dollars are used appropriately and efficiently by the states to supplement — not substitute — their obligation to respond to and recover from disasters.”

Jackson said there is “no politicization” in Trump’s decisions on disaster aid.

The Trump administration has also yet to act on California’s request for $33.9 million in long-term disaster assistance nearly a year after the Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom said FEMA officials refused his request for a meeting when he visited Washington a few weeks ago.

Trump has raised the idea of “phasing out” FEMA, saying he wants states to take more responsibility. States already take the lead in disasters, but federal assistance comes into play when the needs exceed what they can manage on their own.

Source link

How volatile is the political situation in Bangladesh? | Politics

Tensions are growing after the killing of a student leader in last year’s revolt, which toppled Sheikh Hasina.

Tensions are growing in Bangladesh after the killing of a student leader of last year’s uprising that ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Elections for a new government are due in February.

So, how volatile is the political situation?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Taqbir Huda – human rights lawyer and Clarendon Scholar at Oxford University

Asif Shahan – professor of development studies at the University of Dhaka

Fahmida Khatun – executive director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue in Bangladesh

Source link

Why a Bollywood spy film sparked a political storm in India and Pakistan | Explainer News

New Delhi, India – A newly released Bollywood spy thriller is winning praise and raising eyebrows in equal measure in India and Pakistan, over its retelling of bitter tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

Sunk in a sepia tone, Dhurandhar, which was released in cinemas last week, is a 3.5-hour-long cross-border political spy drama that takes cinemagoers on a violent and bloody journey through a world of gangsters and intelligence agents set against the backdrop of India-Pakistan tensions. It comes just months after hostilities broke out between the two countries in May, following a rebel attack on a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India blamed Pakistan for. Islamabad has denied role in the attack.

Since the partition of India to create Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The film stars the popular actor Ranveer Singh, who plays an Indian spy who infiltrates networks of “gangsters and terrorists” in Karachi, Pakistan. Critics of the film argue that its storyline is laced with ultra-nationalist political tropes and that it misrepresents history, an emerging trend in Bollywood, they say.

A still from the trailer of Dhurandhar. Credit: Jio Studios
A still from the trailer of Dhurandhar [Jio Studios/Al Jazeera]

What is the latest Bollywood blockbuster about?

Directed by Aditya Dhar, the film dramatises a covert chapter from the annals of Indian intelligence. The narrative centres on a high-stakes, cross-border mission carried out by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), and focuses on one operative who conducts operations on enemy soil to neutralise threats to Indian national security.

The film features a heavyweight ensemble cast led by Singh, who plays the gritty field agent tasked with dismantling a “terror” network from the inside. He is pitted against a formidable antagonist played by Sanjay Dutt, representing the Pakistani establishment, and gangsters such as one portrayed by Akshaye Khanna, while actors including R Madhavan portray key intelligence officers and strategists who orchestrate complex geopolitical manoeuvering from New Delhi.

Structurally, the screenplay follows a classic cat-and-mouse trajectory.

Beneath its high-octane set pieces, the film has sparked an angry debate among critics and audiences over the interpretation of historical events and some key figures.

A still from the trailer of Dhurandhar. Credit: Jio Studios
A scene shown in the trailer of the new Bollywood film, Dhurandhar [Jio Studios/Al Jazeera]

Why is the film so controversial in Pakistan?

Despite the longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two countries, India’s Bollywood films remain popular in Pakistan.

Depicting Pakistan as the ultimate enemy of India has been a popular theme retold for years, in different ways, especially in Bollywood’s spy thrillers, however. In this case, the portrayal of Pakistan’s major coastal city, Karachi, and particularly one of its oldest and most densely populated neighbourhoods, Lyari, has drawn strong criticism.

“The representation in the film is completely based on fantasy. It doesn’t look like Karachi. 
It does not represent the city accurately at all,” Nida Kirmani, an associate professor of sociology at Lahore University of Management Sciences, told Al Jazeera.

Kirmani, who has produced a documentary on the impact of gang violence in Lyari of her own, said that like other megacities in the world, “Karachi had periods of violence that have been particularly intense.”

However, “reducing the city to violence is one of the major problems in the film, along with the fact the film gets everything about Karachi – from its infrastructure, culture, and language – wrong”, she added.

Meanwhile, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has taken legal action in a Karachi court alleging the unauthorised use of images of the late former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, and protesting against the film’s portrayal of the party’s leaders as supporters of “terrorists”.

Critics, including Kirmani, say the film also bizarrely casts gangs from Lyari into geopolitical tensions with India, when they have only ever operated locally.

Kirmani said the makers of the movie have cherry-picked historical figures and used them completely out of context, “trying to frame them within this very Indian nationalistic narrative”.

Mayank Shekhar, a film critic based in Mumbai, pointed out that the film “has been performed, written, directed by those who haven’t ever stepped foot in Karachi, and perhaps never will”.

“So, never mind this dust bowl for a city that, by and large, seems wholly bereft of a single modern building, and looks mostly bombed-out, between multiple ghettos,” Shekhar said.

He added that this is also in line with how Hollywood “shows the brown Third World in action with a certain sepia tone, like with Extraction, set in Dhaka, Bangladesh”.

dhurandhar
Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh (centre) performs during the music launch of his upcoming Indian Hindi-language film Dhurandhar in Mumbai on December 1, 2025 [Sujit Jaiswal/AFP]

How has the film been received in India?

Dhurandhar has been a huge commercial success in India and among the Indian diaspora. However, it has not escaped criticism entirely.

The family of a decorated Indian Army officer, Major Mohit Sharma, filed a petition in Delhi High Court to stop the release of the film, which, they claim, has exploited his life and work without their consent.

The makers of the film deny this and claim it is entirely a work of fiction.

Nonetheless, the film’s storyline is accompanied by real-time intercepted audio recordings of attacks on Indian soil and news footage, film critics and analysts say.

People seen in front of a movie theater that is screening the film Kashmir files that
People linger outside a movie theatre that is screening The Kashmir Files, in Kolkata, India, on March 17, 2022 [Debarchan Chatterjee/NurPhoto via Getty Images]

Is this an emerging pattern in Bollywood films?

Shekhar told Al Jazeera that focusing on a deliberately loud, seemingly over-the-top, hyper-masculine hero’s journey is not a new genre in Bollywood. “There’s a tendency to intellectualise the trend, as we did with the ‘angry young man’ movies of the 1970s,” he said, referring to the formative years of Bollywood.

In recent years, mainstream production houses in India have, however, favoured storylines that portray minorities in negative light and align with the policies of the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kirmani told Al Jazeera that this frequently means “reducing Muslims across India’s borders and within as ‘terrorists’, which further marginalises Muslims in India culturally”.

“Unfortunately, people gravitate towards these kinds of hypernationalistic narratives, and the director is cashing in on this,” she told Al Jazeera.

Modi himself lavished praise on a recent film called Article 370, for what he said was its “correct information” about the removal of the constitutional provision that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Critics, however, called the film “propaganda” and said the film had distorted facts.

Another Bollywood film Kerala Story released in 2023 was accused of falsifying facts. Prime Minister Modi praised the film, but critics said it tried to vilify Muslims and demonise the southern Kerala state known for its progressive politics.

In the case of Dhurandhar, some critics have faced online harassment.

One review by The Hollywood Reporter’s India YouTube channel, by critic Anupama Chopra, was taken down after outrage from fans of the film.

India’s Film Critics Guild has condemned “coordinated abuse, personal attacks on individual critics, and organised attempts to discredit their professional integrity”, in a statement.

“More concerningly, there have been attempts to tamper with existing reviews, influence editorial positions, and persuade publications to alter or dilute their stance,” the group noted.



Source link

Trump’s callous political attack on Rob Reiner shows a shameful moral failure

Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

Rest in peace, indeed.

It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.

For years, Reiner made the politics of inclusion and decency central to his life. He was a key player in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage and fought to expand early childhood education.

For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.

“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”

The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.

But also, deeply hypocritical.

It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.

Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.

And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.

“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”

But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.

Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.

He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.

This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.

But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”

Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”

Sound familiar?

That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.

Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.

If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.

Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.

And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.

Source link

Conservative political analyst joins NewsNation for a new prime-time show

Katie Pavlich, a longtime contributor to Fox News, is leaving the network to join NewsNation.

Pavlich, a conservative political analyst, will have a nightly 10 p.m ET program starting early next year, the Nexstar-owned cable news channel announced Monday.

Pavlich, 37, will replace Ashleigh Banfield, who held down the time period since 2021. Banfield will partner with the network to create digital true crime content, including a podcast.

Pavlich has spent the last 16 years as news editor of the conservative website Townhall.com. She appeared regularly on cable ratings leader Fox News since 2013, appearing as a guest co-host on “The Five” and a fill-in host on its prime-time programs.

Pavlich becomes the latest Fox News alum to join NewsNation. Leland Vittert, a former correspondent for the network, is NewsNation’s 9 p.m. Eastern host. Chris Stirewalt, who was fired from Fox after the 2020 presidential election, is politics editor for the network.

Veteran cable news host Ashleigh Banfield will work on digital true crime content for NewsNation

Veteran cable news host Ashleigh Banfield joined NewsNation in March.

(NewsNation)

NewsNation was launched in 2020 as an alternative to the three major cable news networks at a time when all leaned heavily into opinion programming in prime time. But the network has moved toward political debate since Chris Cuomo became its highest rated host in prime time.

An Arizona native who grew up as an avid hunter, Pavlich is a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment. She poses with firearms in a number of photos on her Instagram.

Pavlich is the author of several books, including New York Times bestsellers “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal” and “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.”

Source link

Geraldine Ferraro dies at 75; shattered political barrier for women as vice presidential nominee in 1984

Geraldine A. Ferraro, the savvy New York Democrat who was embraced as a symbol of women’s equality in 1984 when she became the first woman nominated for vice president by a major party, died Saturday at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She was 75.

The cause was complications from multiple myeloma, her family said.

Ferraro was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable form of blood cancer, in 1998. She did not disclose her illness publicly until 2001, when she went on NBC’s “Today” show and said she had beaten the cancer into remission with thalidomide, the once-banned drug that had proven effective with some end-stage cancers. The cancer recurred, but she again went into remission after therapy with a new drug.

Initially told that she had three to five years to live, she survived for more than 12 years, long enough to witness the historic candidacies of two other women in 2008: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady and current secretary of State who ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

Ferraro was “a pioneer in our country for justice and a more open society,” former Vice President Walter Mondale told the Associated Press of his former running mate. “She broke a lot of molds, and it’s a better country for what she did.”

Palin also praised Ferraro, writing in a Facebook message that she “broke one huge barrier and then went on to break many more.”

Ferraro’s 1984 candidacy was seen as a potentially powerful weapon to turn the emerging “gender gap” of the 1980s to the advantage of the Democratic Party, which sought to regain the White House after Ronald Reagan’s first term.

But her four-month campaign almost immediately hit rough waters. She was bashed by critics who questioned the finances of her husband, John Zaccaro, a Manhattan real estate developer. A devout Roman Catholic, she was repeatedly assailed by New York’s archbishop, the late John J. O’Connor, for her views supporting abortion rights. She also endured insinuations of mob connections as the first Italian American on a national ticket.

“I was constantly being asked, ‘Was it worth it?’ Of course it was worth it!” she wrote in “Framing a Life, A Family Memoir,” published in 1998. “My candidacy was a benchmark moment for women. No matter what anyone thought of me personally, or of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, my candidacy had flung open the last door barring equality — and that door led straight to the Oval Office.”

Her nomination astonished some of the most stalwart feminists. Among them was Ms. magazine founder Gloria Steinem, who had predicted that 1984 would be the year that politicians talked seriously about putting a woman on the national ticket, not “the year they actually did it.”

Over the next two decades, other women achieved milestones in national politics. Janet Reno became U.S. attorney general, Madeleine Albright was named secretary of State, and Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House.

Their path was eased by Ferraro, who believed that a childhood tragedy set up her moment in history.

“I’ve often said that if my father hadn’t died, I might not have done anything,” Ferraro once told Steinem in an interview. “I saw my mother left suddenly with kids and no money…. I wanted to be able to take care of myself and not miss a beat.”

Born Aug. 26, 1935, in Newburgh, N.Y., she was the pampered daughter of Antonetta and Dominick Ferraro, Italian immigrants who had lost a son, Gerard, in a car crash and were so overjoyed at her birth a few years later that they named her Geraldine, in memory of him.

Dominick Ferraro ran a successful restaurant in Newburgh. When business fell on hard times, he turned to running a numbers game and was arrested. On the morning he was to appear in court, he died of an apparent heart attack. Ferraro was 8.

She became seriously anemic — doctors told her she had internalized her grief — and was unable to attend school for months. Strapped for money, her mother moved the family to a cramped Bronx apartment and took a job as a crochet beader. By scrimping on meat and other luxuries, she managed to send Ferraro to Marymount, an exclusive parochial school in Tarrytown, N.Y., and later to Marymount Manhattan College.

Ferraro graduated and became an elementary school teacher in Queens. At night she put herself through Fordham Law School, one of two women in a class of 179 whose professors resented her for “taking a man’s rightful place.”

Years later, when she was raising three children of her own and finally had begun to practice law, Ferraro split her legal fees with her mother and kept her maiden name in tribute.

She took the bar exam two days before her wedding in 1961 and passed, but Zaccaro did not want his wife to work, so she spent the next 13 years as a homemaker in upper-middle-class Forest Hills, N.Y. Their first child, Donna, was born in 1961, followed by John Jr. in 1964 and Laura in 1966.

She balanced her domestic responsibilities with pro bono work for women in family court and became the first woman on the board of the Forest Hills Gardens Corp. She also was elected president of a women’s bar association.

In 1974, when her youngest child was in second grade, she went to see her cousin, Queens Dist. Atty. Nicholas Ferraro, who hired her as a prosecutor. Within three years she was promoted to chief of the special victims bureau, in charge of sex crimes, child abuse, rape and domestic violence cases. It was emotionally draining work, but she won six jury trials, aided, according to a review by American Lawyer magazine, by her “straightforward eloquent approach” and “meticulous courtroom preparation.”

Her years as a prosecutor transformed her from a “small-c conservative to a liberal,” she later said. And it would lead her to adopt a supportive view of abortion that would put her in conflict with her church.

“You can force a person to have a child, but you can’t make the person love that child,” Ferraro wrote, reflecting on the child abuse cases she prosecuted. “I don’t know what pain a fetus experiences, but I can well imagine the suffering of a four-year-old girl being dipped in boiling water until her skin came off and then lying in bed unattended for two days until she died. And that was only one of the cases seared in my memory.”

In 1978, Ferraro formally entered politics. Running for Congress on the slogan “Finally, a tough Democrat,” she won by a 10% margin despite being snubbed by local party leaders.

She was reelected twice by even larger margins — 58% in 1980 and 73% in 1982.

She studiously strove to avoid the pitfalls of being a rookie and one of the few women in Congress. After overhearing a male colleague’s putdown of a new female member who “couldn’t find her way to the ladies’ room,” Ferraro mentally mapped out her exact route whenever she headed out the door. “Silly, right? And totally inconsequential,” she said. “But nothing is worse than looking as if you don’t know where you’re going.”

A quick learner, she soon caught the attention of House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who called her “a regular since the day she arrived.” She was in many ways an old-fashioned politician who could schmooze and glad-hand with the most wizened colleagues. O’Neill rewarded her with seats on the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the House Budget Committee, as well as the position of secretary to the House Democratic Caucus. Male colleagues found her effective but, as then-Rep. Leon E. Panetta described her, “not a Bella Abzug type,” a reference to the late New York congresswoman and feminist leader known for her confrontational style.

Ferraro supported a nuclear freeze, opposed Reagan’s tax-cut proposal, upheld support for social programs for the poor, elderly and children, and was a strong supporter of Israel. She was passionate about abortion rights and championed the Equal Rights Amendment. She also voted against mandatory busing for integration and for tuition tax credits for parochial schools, positions that won favor in her conservative, largely blue-collar district. Her record earned a description in Time as “a New Deal Democrat with a good seasoning of traditional family values,” an appealing balance that eventually would help her leap onto the national stage.

While she was building her career in Washington, interest in the gender gap began to intensify. Proportionally more men than women had voted Reagan into office in 1980. Many partisans began to take note of the fact that he had won by 8.4 million votes, a margin that they hoped could be overturned the next time by some 30 million unregistered women of voting age.

In late 1983, the drumbeat for a female vice president began at a conference of the National Organization for Women, the nation’s largest feminist group. Polls began to ask whether a woman on the ticket would make a difference, and the answer was coming back as yes.

In Washington, a group of politically connected Democratic women began a stealth campaign. Calling themselves Team A, they prodded prominent Democrats to publicly endorse the concept of a female vice president. Eventually, Mondale, Gary Hart and Edward M. Kennedy spoke favorably of the idea. The ad-hoc group floated names of potential candidates, including women then in Congress such as Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Pat Schroeder of Colorado, and then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. They encouraged women in the national media to write about putting a woman on the ticket.

Early in 1984, after vetting the possibilities, the group decided that the woman with the most voter appeal was Ferraro. Over a Chinese takeout dinner, Team A broached the subject with her. Would she “stay open to the idea of becoming the actual nominee” if the concept caught on? Ferraro recalled her reaction: “I was flabbergasted and flattered.” The possibility of her nomination struck her as extremely remote, but she agreed to become the focus of the team’s efforts.

To raise her national profile, she went after a prominent role in the upcoming Democratic National Convention and became the first woman to be platform chair. She earned high marks for averting a potential convention revolt by delegates pledged to Hart and Jesse Jackson, who ultimately were satisfied that the platform reflected their views.

While she labored over the platform, prominent figures, including House Speaker O’Neill, began to drop her name as a contender for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

By early July, she was regularly mentioned as a finalist on Mondale’s list, along with San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode, Kentucky Gov. Martha Layne Collins, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, and Feinstein. The party front-runner summoned her to Minnesota for an interview, but she nearly pulled herself out of contention after leaks from a high-ranking Mondale staffer resulted in stories deriding her prospects.

The waiting ended July 11 when Mondale popped the question: Would she be his running mate?

“I didn’t pause for a minute,” Ferraro wrote in “Ferraro: My Story,” published in 1985.

At a news conference that day, an unusually effervescent Mondale said — twice — “This is an exciting choice.”

Among the pundits who agreed was New Yorker political analyst Elizabeth Drew. Ferraro’s selection, she wrote, was “a lightning bolt across the political landscape.” It not only would help Mondale energize female voters, Hart supporters and independents, but would bolster the staid image of the Minnesota Democrat who, in a stroke, had “reduced ? the assumption that he is incapable of bold action.” Dragging by double digits in the polls, Mondale had grasped his “best, and perhaps only, hope” for victory in November.

On July 19, Ferraro strode onto the stage at San Francisco’s Moscone Center to accept her party’s nomination. She was greeted by roars of “Gerr-reee! Gerr-reee!” from what looked like a sea of jubilant women, many of them non-delegates who had finagled floor passes to witness this stirring moment in the nation’s history.

“My name is Geraldine Ferraro,” the then-48-year-old declared, for once slowing her usual staccato style of speech. “I stand before you to proclaim tonight, America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.”

The mood “was so electric that just being female felt terrific,” Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times.

But none of Ferraro’s years in Congress prepared her for the hurricane that was coming.

The media clamored for interviews, amassing in such numbers that Capitol Hill police roped off her office to keep them at bay. More than 50,000 letters and gifts — ranging from books to a boxing glove — poured in by election day.

Within two weeks of her nomination, the flak began to hit.

Critics blasted her for taking the statutory exemption to withhold information about her husband’s finances on disclosure statements required of members of Congress. And John Zaccaro was attacked for improperly borrowing money from the estate of an 84-year-old widow. He later was removed as conservator. In subsequent weeks the public would learn that Ferraro had improperly loaned money to her first House campaign in 1978, and that Zaccaro and Ferraro had underpaid their taxes that year.

In the blur of campaigning, Ferraro approved a news release that mistakenly said she would release her husband’s tax returns. When she subsequently refused to release the returns, the candidate with a dangerous tendency toward flippancy told a reporter: “You people who are married to Italian men, you know what it’s like.”

Immediately she knew she had made a terrible gaffe. She had meant that Italian men tended to be private about their personal affairs, but her remark was interpreted as an ethnic slur. It also fueled debate about Ferraro’s toughness, with critics contending if she wasn’t strong enough to oppose her husband, she couldn’t stand up to the Soviets.

Media scrutiny of her husband was so intense that reporters even began to investigate allegations that his father had once rented space to a member of the Gambino crime family.

(Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee later observed that the charges, which never amounted to much, would not have been made if she had been “somebody named Jenkins. You’d have to be from another planet not to think that,” he told The Times in a post-election analysis.)

In late August, she released a detailed financial disclosure statement and faced the national media. She earned favorable reviews for her responses to 90 minutes of often hostile questioning (“Ferraro passes a vital test,” went a cover line in Time) but her candidacy never recovered.

In September, Ferraro began fending off attacks on a new front. New York’s Archbishop O’Connor lashed out at her stand on abortion rights and said she had misrepresented church teachings on abortion. He even held open the possibility of excommunication. Anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups clashed at her rallies.

The Italian American community did not rise to her defense, even when other critics attempted to smear her with allegations of underworld dealings. Some commentators decried the sexism they said was fueling the attacks. Noting the silence of the Italian American community, syndicated columnist Richard Reeves observed: “The stoning of Geraldine Ferraro in the public square goes on and on, and no one steps forward to help or protest — not even one of her kind?. The sons of Italy and fathers of the Roman Catholic Church are silent or are too busy reaching for bigger rocks?. Heresy! Mafia! Men are putting women in their place.”

Ferraro did well when she faced then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in debate. He ignored her request that she be addressed as “Congresswoman,” however, and called her “Mrs. Ferraro” instead. Shortly before the debate, she was insulted by Barbara Bush who called her “that four-million-dollar — I can’t say it, but it rhymes with ‘rich.’ ” (Ferraro and Zaccaro’s net worth had been reported at $3.8 million.)

She was discouraged by news coverage that she felt rarely reflected the enthusiasm and massive crowds she encountered on the campaign trail. “They were far less interested in what I had to say about the life-and-death issues facing the nation than they were about what I was wearing, how I looked that day, whether or not I cried, and what was happening in my marriage,” she recalled in her memoir.

Reagan, one of the most popular presidents in history, wound up with an 18-point victory, aided in part by women, who supported him in greater numbers than they had the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Post-election analyses found that Ferraro had neither greatly helped nor hindered the Democrats’ chances.

What later became clear to Ferraro was how ambivalent the electorate — particularly women — had been about her candidacy.

Those attitudes led Ferraro to make a controversial appearance in a 1991 commercial for Pepsi-Cola, in which she endorsed being a mother over being in politics. Feminists shouted betrayal.

The commercial apparently did little to bolster her chances the following year when she ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate. She lost the 1992 Democratic primary and again in the 1998 primary, her last bid for elected office.

Fatigued after the primary, she went for a medical checkup and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

She was determined to remain active despite the ups and down of her health. At President Clinton’s request, she served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. She found a forum for her views on television as the liberal co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” and as a Fox political analyst. In 2004, she helped found grannyvoter.org with other female activists in their 60s to encourage grandparents to become politically involved. She also worked for a number of lobbying firms.

Later, Ferraro was a feisty advocate for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, garnering criticism for remarking during the heated 2008 primary season that Obama had an advantage because he is black. The remark was perceived as racist, and in the ensuing controversy, Ferraro resigned from her voluntary position on Clinton’s campaign finance committee, but she did not back away from her view of how race and gender were playing out in the campaign.

“Sexism is a bigger problem” than racism in the United States, Ferraro told the Daily Breeze in the March 2008 story that made her a liability for the Clinton campaign. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”

She harbored no regrets at having tried to become the first female vice president, despite how grueling the struggle was. What women needed to remember, she told an interviewer in 2004, was a simple fact of politics: “If you don’t run, you can’t win.”

In addition to her husband and three children, Ferraro, who lived in New York City, is survived by eight grandchildren. Funeral arrangements are pending.

elaine.woo@latimes.com

Source link

Gangs: The New Political Force in Los Angeles : Governance: Bloods-Crips unity is about who will rule South-Central. Those in authority now have abdicated any claim to leadership.

Luis J. Rodriguez, a former gang member, is author of “Always Running: A Memoir of La Vida Loca, Gang Days in Los Angeles (Curbstone). Cle (Bone) Sloan is a member of the Bloods, Kershaun (Little Monster) Scott of the Crips

The political terrain of the country has dramatically changed since the presidential nominating process began in February. The most significant development was the outbreak of violence in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers accused of illegally beating Rodney G. King. New forces are arising in the land. They must be addressed.

A segment of the so-called marginalized and disenfranchised are stirring. In the past, they were written off as the “underclass,” the disadvantaged, even as “illegal.” They have been criminalized and dismissed. You could either feel sorry for them or hate them. The point was not to get near them.

They must now be reckoned with as a political force.

From the homeless to welfare mothers, from people with AIDS to the physically handicapped, thousands are flexing their organizational muscle, and using it on the streets, in pursuit of their economic and political interests. The unity in Los Angeles between the city’s two largest gangs, the Crips and Bloods, is expressive of this development.

The stirrings of “the bottom” of society aim toward certain goals: the end of scarcity in the midst of plenty; complete literacy; the ability to function competently at any chosen level of society; productive and livable employment; access to the most advanced health care in the world and a real voice in the policy decisions that affect their lives.

It is in this context that the Bloods and the Crips have come together to demand their place in the changing social fabric.

How is this possible when police and most of the media portray them as drug-dealing, inner-city terrorists?

It’s possible because these gangs are not monolithic. There is no single leadership. To be sure, there are gang members who care nothing about unity. For years, their violent acts dictated the lives and determined the deaths of thousands of young people in South-Central. Communities were pulled into the warfare.

Another group, less publicized, became politicized with every police beating, every inequity, every injustice. Years ago, these gang members, along with others in the community, began work on uniting the gangs. Until the April uprising, most of these efforts involved individuals. Since then, unity efforts have been carried out on a larger scale, with neighborhoods participating.

At the same time, gang members grew tired of the senseless killings. Many of these killings touched everyone, particularly when children were hit. This is why, in the aftermath of the uprising, graffiti appeared expressing such sentiments as “Mexicans & Crips & Bloods Together.” Police later erased most of the unity-related scrawl.

The gangs became political through observation and participation. Although many of the youth don’t read, they witness politics playing itself out every day. What the King beating did, what the uprising did, was help them cross the line of understanding what’s really going on.

The Bloods-Crips unity is about who will rule South-Central. A Los Angeles radio announcer recently estimated that there were some 640 liquor stores within a three-mile radius of South-Central, compared with no movie houses or community centers. Elsewhere, schools and streets are in disrepair. Manufacturing industries have been shuttered forever. Under these circumstances, you have to ask: Who really controls this community?

Not the community.

Although the people of South-Central share responsibility for their conditions–proportionately, more of them are in jail than any other community in the city–they don’t have any decisive control over their lives. This is a breakdown in the integration of responsibility and authority, a component of any democratic process. Those with the authority, including the police and city, county and state officials, fail to take any responsibility, thus abdicating any claim to leadership.

Yet it was precisely when the gangs came together that the police tried to break up as many “unity” rallies as they could, arresting gang leaders and inflaming the ire of residents of housing projects, where many of the rallies were held. The Los Angeles Police Department told the media that the gangs were going to turn on police officers, even ambush them. Yet no police officer in South-Central has been killed or severely hurt since April 29, the day the King-beating verdict came down.

Soon after the rebellion, local law enforcement circulated a flyer among themselves–and the media–that proclaimed the Crips and Bloods would “kill two cops for every gang member killed.” It was incendiary and a forgery. For example, most African-American gang leaders would never use the words “little black girl” to describe Latasha Harlins, who was slain by a Korean grocer last year. They know the flyer’s writing style was not even crudely close to the current street style. The flyer appeared to be yet another example of cartoon propaganda that has characterized previous allegations by police.

Meanwhile, the federal government has launched the largest investigation of its kind to destroy the gangs. Government officials are using the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the one used to put reputed crime boss John Gotti in jail, to go after every person associated with the Crips and the Bloods. It appears the FBI is targeting the L.A. gangs for political, not criminal, activity, since its efforts are directly related to the events beginning April 29.

This is not new, or surprising. After the 1965 Watts rebellion, several gangs united, some of them becoming the L.A. chapter of the Black Panthers. The federal government intervened, orchestrating the friction between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves organization.

Last year, nearly 600 L.A. youth were killed in gang- or drug-related incidents. Yet only now has Washington decided to come in, when the rate of shootings and deaths has dramatically fallen.

Despite the array of local, state and federal forces currently poised against L.A. gangs, gang unity is going to last. The Bloods and Crips have undergone a 22-year-old war without declared terms. To think that in five or six months there will be total unity is unrealistic. There are still some individual disputes. But the attacks have diminished in scale and number. The war is essentially over. The government–and police–should stop undermining the truce, stop fanning the emotional flames that will only bring on more death and destruction.

The Bloods and Crips are not asking for anything from anybody. This is what they have to do for themselves. They have even bypassed certain so-called leaders, including Jesse Jackson. They are not asking for outsiders to step in and dictate the terms of peace.

Recently, a plan to rebuild L.A., presumed to be from the Bloods and Crips, was floated around. Regardless of its origin, the plan was in clear contrast to the “official” rebuilding group, whose members are mostly from outside South-Central. The plan does not call for re-establishing the taco stands, the liquor stores or exploitative markets that previously dotted South-Central. Instead, it calls for improved housing, infrastructure and sanitation, for more parks, community centers and health-care facilities. It includes a proposal for upgrading all schools. It ends with the statement: “Give us the hammers and the nails, we will rebuild the city.”

This embodies a vision, something many police and some government officials would like the public to believe the gangs are incapable of possessing. This is taking responsibility. And it is a demand for the authority to carry it out.

Despite great odds, the Bloods and Crips have found common ground, a unified aim, to end the violence. Whether society is ready for this or not, it is the only path not littered with hypocrisy and blame. Indeed, it is one of the few for peace and justice still viable in Los Angeles.

Source link

Belarus releases 123 political prisoners after U.S. eases sanctions

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, pictured at a press conference in January, agreed to release 123 political prisoners on Saturday in exchange for the United States dropping its crippling sanctions against the potash industry in Belarus. File Photo by Belarus President Press Service/EPA-EFE

Dec. 13 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday ended U.S. sanctions on potash fertilizers from Belarus in exchange for Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko releasing 123 political prisoners.

Lukashenko freed the prisoners, who include Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski and political opposition figure Maria Kolesnikova, in an effort to improve the Russia-allied nation’s relations with the United States, Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times reported.

“In accordance with President Trump’s instructions, the United States is lifting sanctions on potash,” U.S. Special Envoy John Coale told Belta, Belarus’ official news agency.

“I believe this is a very good step by the United States for Belarus,” Coale said. “We are lifting them now.”

Belarus has been sanctioned by the U.S. and other Western nations since 2021 because of Lukashenko’s authoritarian rule and decades of political repression.

Sanctions have ramped up since 2022 because Lukashenko also allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to launch his invasion of Ukraine from Belarus.

In 2024, Lukashenko started releasing prisoners in order to appease Western leaders, including Trump, and get sanctions lifted that have crippled the Belarusian potash industry.

Since July 2024, before Saturday’s prisoner release, Belarus has freed more than 430 political prisoners.

According to Coale, the United States is “constantly talking” to Belarus and lifting the U.S. sanctions on potash — European sanctions, which have been called more consequential than the U.S. sanctions, remain in place — is a step toward reaching a point where all sanctions against the country have been removed.

“As relations between the two countries normalize, more sanctions will be lifted,” Coale said.

Source link

Reassessing the Use of Article 122 TFEU: A Legal and Political Misstep

I recall how, when I was still teaching EU law at ULB, I used to point to Article 122 TFEU with a certain pride bordering on mischief. “Students,” I would say, “we always complain that the treaties leave us powerless in a crisis—but look, quietly hidden in plain sight, there is this little Swiss-army-knife provision that lets the Council act fast, by qualified majority, in a spirit of solidarity, when severe economic difficulties arise.” I presented it as one of the smartest pieces of constitutional engineering in the entire treaty. Today, I am no longer so proud.

The European Commission is now invoking that very Article 122(1) TFEU in December 2025 to make the immobilization of €210 billion of Russian central bank assets permanent and to transform them into collateral for massive loans to Ukraine. Yet Article 122 is an economic-policy tool—not a foreign-policy or sanctions instrument. Freezing a third country’s sovereign reserves is, by definition, a restrictive measure governed by Article 215 TFEU, which requires unanimity under the CFSP.

The objective behind this legal switch is transparent: to bypass the vetoes of Hungary and possibly Slovakia. But this is a textbook evasion of the unanimity rule, the very type of maneuver the Court of Justice has repeatedly condemned—most famously in its 2012 ruling on sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Nor are the textual prerequisites of Article 122(1) even remotely satisfied. Its triggers—“severe difficulties in the supply of certain products, notably energy” or threats to the balance of payments—simply do not correspond to political inconvenience in renewing sanctions. And the Court has never equated a geopolitical stalemate with an “economic emergency.”

The Commission’s approach also stretches the Union’s powers far beyond their constitutional limits. The EU does not possess a general emergency competence and has no authority to adopt quasi-confiscatory measures against the central bank of a third state. Under customary international law, central-bank assets enjoy near-absolute immunity; using them as loan collateral without judicial process or a peace treaty amounts, in many experts’ view, to unlawful expropriation.

Such a precedent would be economically reckless. The ECB has repeatedly warned—if mostly behind closed doors—of the catastrophic effects this could have on the euro’s status as a reserve currency. The “without prejudice” clause in Article 122 does not grant it supremacy over more specific legal bases that deliberately require unanimity.

And even if one were to ignore these structural limits, the litigation risk is enormous. Should the Court annul the regulation—a highly probable outcome once Belgium files—the assets will need to be released, the loans will become illegal, and both the Union and Euroclear could face joint liability in the hundreds of billions.

For all these reasons, the overwhelming majority of independent EU and international-law scholars view the attempt to rely on Article 122(1) as legally indefensible. The political majority may still force the measure through in December 2025, but litigation is inevitable. When the action for annulment reaches Luxembourg, the court is likely to strike it down within one or two years. And in the process, my once-beloved Article 122—the provision I used to celebrate as a masterpiece of flexible, solidarity-driven drafting—may emerge severely damaged, perhaps permanently.

I never thought I would live to see the day when this provision would be twisted into what the Belgian Prime Minister has openly called “theft.” One further doctrinal point makes the misuse even clearer: Article 122(1) defines its object and purpose with remarkable precision. It authorizes Council action “in a spirit of solidarity between Member States” when Member States face severe economic difficulties. This solidarity clause is not decorative; the Court has repeatedly affirmed its binding nature.

A systemic reading reinforces this conclusion. Article 122(1) cannot be used to grant financial assistance—a power explicitly reserved for Article 122(2), which functions as a lex specialis. Measures under paragraph 1 therefore cannot include loans or any other form of financial aid, let alone the conversion of a third country’s frozen sovereign assets into collateral for a €100–200 billion lending operation to another third country. The Commission’s proposal is not merely constitutionally illegitimate for hijacking a CFSP sanction; it is textually impossible.

Recent developments only underscore the trend toward abusing Article 122 as a general crisis-financing mechanism. On 19 March 2025, the Commission proposed a Council regulation establishing the “SAFE instrument” (Security Action for Europe) to rapidly expand Europe’s arms industry. Although the proposal generically cites “Article 122 TFEU,” it is clear from its substance—providing financial assistance to Member States to support urgent, large-scale defense investments—that it relies on Article 122(2).

The SAFE regulation would mobilize €150 billion from the EU budget in the form of subsidies and subsidized loans for national defense projects. Since Member States may receive financial aid from the Union budget on account of severe difficulties only under Article 122(2), the proposal cannot be grounded in Article 122(1). Its explanatory memorandum invokes the “exceptional security context” and the need for “massive investments” in defense manufacturing—but these are political arguments, not legal ones.

Taken together, the Russian-assets plan and the SAFE proposal amount to a systematic attempt to transform Article 122 into a universal crisis and security financing clause—a purpose it was never designed to fulfill.

The European Parliament, while strongly supportive of assisting Ukraine, has raised alarm over this distortion of a 1957 economic-emergency provision, adopted in secret, by a qualified majority, without parliamentary scrutiny. When the case reaches Luxembourg, the Parliament will argue—rightly—that the Emperor has no clothes. And on current jurisprudence, the Court is likely to agree.

Article 122 allows the Council to legislate alone. That was grudgingly tolerated for €3 billion of extraordinary own resources during COVID. For €210 billion of another state’s sovereign assets in peacetime, it is constitutionally explosive.

The real motive remains the neutralization of Hungary’s veto in the CFSP. But the Court has annulled every previous attempt to launder a CFSP measure through a non-CFSP legal basis (see Case C-130/10). And while the war undeniably harms Europe’s economy, the Court has never accepted “we need to bypass a veto” as equivalent to an energy-supply crisis or a balance-of-payments emergency.

If the General Court or the ECJ strikes down the €150 billion defense fund for exceeding the scope of Article 122, then the Russian assets regulation—which is even further removed from classic economic policy grounds—has virtually no chance of surviving judicial review.

Source link

A political cartoonist reveals his secrets in a new video

Political cartoons have infuriated kings, crooks and captains of industry since the days of the penny press in 19th century England. In a new video produced by two talented Los Angeles Times staffers, Armand Emamdjomeh and Don Kelsen, I describe how I carry on this satirical tradition in a world of iPads and online news. Please check it out.

One thing I may not have stressed enough in the video is the work that comes before dreaming up ideas and doing drawings. I learned about that early from one of the masters, Paul Conrad. From 1964 to 1993, Conrad was a formidable editorial voice at this newspaper. His cartoons won Pulitzer Prizes in three different decades. I was lucky enough to meet Conrad when I was just starting my career, and I asked him how I could be a better cartoonist. His answer was simple: “Read, read, read.”

And he was right. It’s not just about drawing. It’s not just about humor. It’s about knowing enough to intelligently engage in the great debates of our times. It is a privilege to have a job where I can jump into that debate, and it’s an honor to practice my craft in the place where Conrad once raised political art to a lofty standard.

For close to two centuries, cartoonists such as Conrad ruled the world of political satire — or were, at least, the most lauded court jesters. Now, in the star-power glare of comic commentators such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, plain old political cartoons can seem old-fashioned.

Still, I think the best cartoons retain a unique, subversive capacity to get inside people’s heads and speak truth to power. Traditionally a creature of print, political cartoons are now finding a new life and new relevance in the world of digital journalism. Cartoons are visual and succinct — key attributes in grabbing the attention of wide-roaming online readers.

Excuse me now, it’s time to do the hard work. I need to go read, read, read.

Source link

10 political thrillers to watch in a year of partisanship and upheaval

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

Political thrillers have been a staple of popular culture since the 1960s, when the Cold War threw conspiracy theory-loving writers into overdrive, and television and film are no exception.

This year, however, has seen a marked abundance of stories dealing with government scheming, corruption, incompetence and general mayhem. (Make of that what you will.) Some have given contemporary resonance to universal classics — assassination, mass casualty events, global annihilation — while others have taken veiled but obvious aim at recent or current leaders and events.

Landing at a time when conspiracy theories, nationalism and charges of treason have become the lingua franca of politics and people are regularly shoved into unmarked cars by ICE agents, some of the plotlines seem less far-fetched than in other eras. But the beauty of the political thriller is that there’s almost always someone able to fight back and ensure that justice prevails.

Here are a few that stood out.

Source link

WTF? Embracing profanity is one thing both political parties seem to agree on

As he shook President Obama’s hand and pulled him in for what he thought was a private aside, Vice President Joe Biden delivered an explicit message: “This is a big f——— deal.” The remark, overheard on live microphones at a 2010 ceremony for the Affordable Care Act, caused a sensation because open profanity from a national leader was unusual at the time.

More than 15 years later, vulgarity is now in vogue.

During a political rally Tuesday night in Pennsylvania that was intended to focus on tackling inflation, President Trump used profanity at least four times. At one point, he even admitted to disparaging Haiti and African nations as “ shithole countries ” during a private 2018 meeting, a comment he denied at the time. And before a bank of cameras during a lengthy Cabinet meeting last week, the Republican president referred to alleged drug smugglers as “sons of b——-s.”

While the Biden incident was accidental, the frequency, sharpness and public nature of Trump’s comments are intentional. They build on his project to combat what he sees as pervasive political correctness. Leaders in both parties are seemingly in a race now to the verbal gutter.

Vice President JD Vance called a podcast host a “dips—t” in September. In Thanksgiving remarks before troops, Vance joked that anyone who said they liked turkey was “full of s—-.” After one National Guard member was killed in a shooting in Washington last month and a second was critically injured, top Trump aide Steven Cheung told a reporter on social media to “shut the f—- up” when she wrote that the deployment of troops in the nation’s capital was “for political show.”

Among Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris earned a roar of approval from her audience in September when she condemned the Trump administration by saying “these mother———- are crazy.” After Trump called for the execution of several Democratic members of Congress last month, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it was time for people with influence to “pick a f——— side.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the administration cannot “f—- around” with the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who on Monday announced her Senate campaign in Texas, did not hold back earlier this year when asked what she would tell Elon Musk if given the chance: “F—- off.”

The volley of vulgarities underscore an ever-coarsening political environment that often plays out on social media or other digital platforms where the posts or video clips that evoke the strongest emotions are rewarded with the most engagement.

“If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the social media companies,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, said Tuesday night at Washington National Cathedral, where he spoke at an event focused on political civility. “It’s not a fair fight. They’ve hijacked our brains. They understand these dopamine hits. Outrage sells.”

Cox, whose national profile rose after calling for civility in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in his state, approved an overhaul of social media laws meant to protect children. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the state law.

Tough political talk is nothing new

Tough talk is nothing new in politics, but leaders long avoided flaunting it.

Recordings from Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, for instance, revealed a crude, profane side of his personality that was largely kept private. Republican Richard Nixon bemoaned the fact that the foul language he used in the Oval Office was captured on tape. “Since neither I nor most other Presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked,” Nixon wrote in his book “In the Arena.”

“Politicians have always sworn, just behind closed doors,” said Benjamin Bergen, a professor at the University of California-San Diego’s Department of Cognitive Science and the author of “What the F: What swearing reveals about our language, our brains, and ourselves.” “The big change is in the past 10 years or so, it’s been much more public.”

As both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential campaign, the question is whether this language will become increasingly mainstream. Republicans who simply try to imitate Trump’s brash style do not always succeed with voters. Democrats who turn to vulgarities risk appearing inauthentic if their words feel forced.

For some, it is just a distraction.

“It’s not necessary,” said GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring next year after winning five elections in one of the most competitive House districts. “If that’s what it takes to get your point across, you’re not a good communicator.”

There are risks of overusing profanity

There also is a risk that if such language becomes overused, its utility as a way to shock and connect with audiences could be dulled. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has talked about this problem, noting that he used swear words in his early routines but dropped them as his career progressed because he felt profanity yielded only cheap laughs.

“I felt like well I just got a laugh because I said f—- in there,” he said in a 2020 interview on the WTF podcast with fellow comedian Marc Maron. “You didn’t find the gold.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said Trump “doesn’t care about being politically correct, he cares about Making America Great Again. The American people love how authentic, transparent, and effective the President is.”

But for Trump, the words that have generated the most controversy are often less centered in traditional profanity than slurs that can be interpreted as hurtful. The final weeks of his 2016 campaign were rocked when a tape emerged of him discussing grabbing women by their genitals, language he minimized as “locker room talk.” His “shithole” remark in 2018 was widely condemned as racist.

More recently, Trump called a female journalist “piggy,” comments that his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, defended as evidence of a president who is “very frank and honest.” Trump’s use of a slur about disabled people prompted an Indiana Republican whose child has Down syndrome to come out in opposition to the president’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts.

On rare occasions, politicians express contrition for their choice of words. In an interview with The Atlantic published last week, Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., dismissed Harris’ depiction of him in her book about last year’s presidential campaign by saying she was “trying to sell books and cover her a—.”

He seemed to catch himself quickly.

“I shouldn’t say ‘cover her a—,” he said. “I think that’s not appropriate.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

Source link