In the age of online shopping, where do IRL salespeople fit in?

A clerk behind the counter in a bookstore puts a customer’s purchases in a shopping bag.

Today, there are more avenues than ever for shoppers to interact with a brand, either virtually or in person. | Getty Images/Hero Images

Customers want help. They also want to be left alone.

The introverts of the world recently rallied around a viral photo on Twitter of a Europe-based Sephora store. The photo was of two shopping basket options: a red basket to convey the customer needs assistance or a black one to show that they’re fine being left alone.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The replies were flooded with shoppers who thought the baskets were an ingenious customer service idea and the solution to awkward encounters with salespeople. “I hope this person is the CEO now,” one Twitter user said. Others tagged companies like Lush Cosmetics and Victoria’s Secret, which they felt had trained employees to be overly gregarious or even intrusive.

Sephora declined to be interviewed for this story, but a spokeswoman said the basket initiative is only available in Europe (sorry Americans!).

The idea that there are two distinct types of real-world retail customers — those who do and those who emphatically do not want to interact with salespeople — seems to be heightened by the age of online shopping.

When most things can be bought from home with the push of a button, the reason shoppers bother to come into stores becomes all the more important for brands to understand and accommodate. Retail workers, who are also contending with top-down mandates about greeting customers and the desire to make commission, need to determine if their assistance is unwelcome or expressly desired.

According to JRNI’s 2019 Modern Consumer report, which surveyed 2,000 shoppers from the US and UK, 67 percent of modern shoppers still enjoy the in-store experience. Yet, only 44 percent of customers feel as though a store can satisfactorily explain its products and services; a majority of shoppers prefer online shopping because of access to detailed product information.

The retail world is scrambling to adapt to these changing desires by revamping store models to be more experiential and engaging as mall foot traffic declines. Still, human interaction in brick-and-mortar stores can be shockingly limited, thanks to technology like self-checkout machines and in-store pickup.

The enthusiasm behind Sephora’s basket initiative pinpoints another aspect of traditional retail customers are now shirking: human service, and whether it still meaningfully suits their needs.

“Amazon has changed our world and how we like to shop,” said Annette Franz, the CEO of customer experience consulting firm CX Journey. “Customers expect to grab what they need and check out, so when they’re approached multiple times by a sales rep, it’s uncomfortable for some.”

Of course, not all modern customers are uncomfortable with human interaction. There are more avenues than ever for shoppers to interact with a brand, either virtually or in person. For a brand like Sephora, a percentage of loyal shoppers crave that in-store help.

“It’s not a shopping experience everyone wants, but some people enter a Sephora to get help finding a new foundation or an eyeshadow palette,” Franz said. “Some customers need that nudge. Maybe they were shopping for one item but are open to walking out with four other things.”

Franz believes stores succeed when they can anticipate consumer needs and wants, and in 2019, that sometimes includes wanting to be left alone.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Amy Barrett had tagged Lush Cosmetics in her response to the Sephora basket photo, asking them to consider a solution like this. “Sincerely, a customer with anxiety who uses your products to calm my mind, but can’t shop in store because it’s an accessibility nightmare,” she wrote in a tweet that received more than 1,000 likes.

Barrett, an editorial assistant based in England, told me via Twitter message that retailers should always have in mind accessibility for customers with physical or mental illnesses. “Lots of the replies to my tweet have shown that people with anxiety struggle to go into Lush stores,” she added.

It’s a delicate balance for retailers. “Sales reps should approach customers, but even with experiential stores, there are boundaries they have to recognize,” Franz said. That’s a customer service development tied to stores’ business strategy as they look to better understand modern-day customers.

Nowadays, shoppers prefer intentional interactions, she added, not just sporadic check-ins. (JRNI’s report found that 57 percent of customers would want to schedule appointments with in-store staff if there was an option to do so.)

Some point to Apple as the pioneer of experiential retail, with its uncluttered design and Genius Bar tech experts that even CEO Steve Jobs was originally skeptical of. As Henry Grabar wrote in Slate, the Genius Bar created “this sense that company employees are trying to help you, not sell you something,” placing the “emphasis on empathy and vibes in the service of sales.”

The interior of Glossier’s New York flagship store.
Glossier
In Glossier’s New York flagship store, salespeople are “editors” equipped with iPads.

This concept is emulated in beauty brand Glossier’s New York flagship store, where sales reps are called “editors” who walk around the “showroom” carrying iPads and offering personal product recommendations. Similarly, customer interaction at women’s clothing store Reformation is limited yet intentional: Guests use in-store iPads to select items and reserve a dressing room.

At Sephora, associates still linger on the floor, introducing shoppers to an array of products that fit their skin type or beauty routine. It’s unclear why Sephora chose to launch this basket initiative in European stores rather than in North America, but it isn’t the first beauty brand to do so.

South Korean beauty brand Innisfree similarly offers a two-basket option in its Korea-based stores. The idea was first implemented by staff in September 2016 in one of its independently owned stores.

“The customers loved the idea, and they were getting the help they needed without explaining their needs,” marketing director Wonny Han wrote to me in an email. “This really boosted up the sales, customer efficiency, and productivity.”

By December of that year, Innisfree decided to formally introduce the baskets to its franchise stores nationwide and saw positive feedback from customers who felt that it was “not pushing sales but respecting customers,” Han added.

It’s much easier, however, for smaller stores like Innisfree to pivot their customer experience strategy. Bigger, traditional chain stores have been hit hardest by the retail apocalypse, with once-successful stores like Sears, Toys R Us, and Barney’s filing for bankruptcy.

“Retailers were only starting to realize these changes within the past five years, working to develop strategies to compete with Amazon and online shopping,” Franz said.

What customers expect from a tech store worker will be different than what they need from a beauty employee, but regardless, their interaction should always be valuable and effective, said Kate Leggett, a principal analyst at Forrester Research who specializes in customer service and relations.

“It’s less about product, especially when you’ve got a lot of products that aren’t very different,” she said. “It’s about engaging a customer to a brand and anticipating, as well as addressing any problems they might have.”

People, even the introverts, haven’t evolved to dislike human contact while shopping. They simply want to make the most of their time and energy, and a badgering sales rep presents quite the opposite experience.

Not all retailers can have a direct-to-consumer brand aesthetic like Glossier or develop a reverent user fanbase like Apple, but Sephora’s basket initiative suggests that maybe stores don’t always have to come up with a wildly innovative idea. The solution for better service could be as simple as giving customers a choice.

Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2O5g6Zw

The state of the 2020 Democratic primary

Supporters cheer for former Vice President and democratic candidate Joe Biden in Concord, New Hampshire, on November 8, 2019. | Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

Democratic voters aren’t sure who they want to be the nominee — just that they want someone who can beat Trump.

With fewer than 75 days until the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic presidential primary is very much in flux.

In case anyone thought that was no longer true, and that the group of frontrunners — which was first limited to former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, then grew slowly over the summer to include Sen. Elizabeth Warren — was now set, think again.

That group has expanded to include South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — at least in an early state or two. He has risen to the top of recent Iowa polls and is also doing increasingly well in New Hampshire.

Of course, it’s difficult to tell at this stage who is actually leading the race, and it is still far too early to predict who will become the nominee. Not least because people are still jumping into the race, or at least flirting with the idea.

But there are a couple trends shaping the race.

In other early states like South Carolina and Nevada, Biden maintains a sizable lead, with Warren trailing in second. Nationally, polling shows a close three-way race between the former vice president and his two main progressive rivals, Warren and Sanders.

But there seems to be a lingering uncertainty about the field of candidates broadly, and Biden specifically — if Buttigieg’s rise, and the late entrances of former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and possibly New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are any sign.


Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg greets people at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 18, 2019.

Amid this uncertainty, each candidate has worked to build their coalitions by leaning into their established brands.

Warren — who had a brief stint as the race’s Iowa and national frontrunner — has responded to increasing attacks from her rivals with policy proposals, releasing a detailed plan to pay for and pass her vision of Medicare-for-all. She’s also seemingly delighted in her increasingly antagonistic relationship with America’s ultra-wealthy, highlighting the work she’d do to rein in Wall Street. Sanders, who paused his campaign for a time following a heart attack, has redoubled his efforts to spread a message of an inclusive revolution, winning high profile endorsements in the process.


David Becker/Getty Images
Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cheer during the Nevada Democrats’ “First in the West” event on November 17, 2019.

Currently, which candidate is in the lead depends on where you look, on demographics, and on how certain each candidate’s current supporters are that they will vote and caucus for them. Spoiler: most say they could change their minds.

Biden remains the candidate to beat

Biden became the race’s frontrunner before he even entered the race — ahead of his official announcement in May, his national polling average was 41 percent. His polling is no longer quite as strong but he remains the frontrunner nationally, with a polling average of around 27 percent.

However, this lead has not insulated him from challenges by those hoping to replace him as the main alternative to the race’s progressive frontrunners, Warren and Sanders. Patrick has said he wants to be the candidate for the “woke,” while “leaving room for the still waking.” And Bloomberg has signaled his campaign would center around a more moderate message as well.

Perhaps chief among these candidates is Buttigieg, who has said, “If you want the left-most possible candidate, you’ve got a clear choice. If you want the candidate with the most years in Washington, you’ve got a clear choice. For everybody else, I just might be your person.”


Joe Raedle/Getty Images
People listen to Democratic presidential candidate South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg speak during a town hall event in Walpole, New Hampshire, on November 10, 2019.

Voters in two early states seem to be responding well to Buttigieg’s pitch, particularly in Iowa, where a November Des Moines Register/CNN poll found that Buttigieg has 25 percent support in the state, trailed by Warren with 16 percent, and Sanders and Biden with 15 each. Respondents in that poll said they favored Buttigieg because he was neither too liberal or conservative — 63 percent said he was ideologically just right.

A November Monmouth University poll turned out similar results, with Buttigieg leading the field with 22 percent support in the state, albeit with a much narrower lead. He doesn’t fare as well in New Hampshire — where recent polling suggests an open race with Warren, Sanders, and Biden each topping one recent poll — but he is nevertheless only a few percentage points behind. (There was one recent New Hampshire poll where Buttigieg had a 10-point lead, but it faced some methodological questions).

While Buttigieg is making a strong case for himself in Iowa and New Hampshire, what casts doubt on Buttigieg assuming the race’s more centrist mantle are the states that come directly after, where polls mirror national ones more closely.

Those states — South Carolina and Nevada — have more diverse populations, and Biden leads among voters of color in both places by a significant margin. For instance, a November Quinnipiac University South Carolina poll found Biden’s support among black voters to be at 44 percent. Buttigieg’s support was about zero.

And the latter’s attempts to win over black voters — a key Democratic constituency — have been mostly marred by controversy, including questions about his handling of a South Bend officer killing a black man, concerns his campaign may have leaked polling suggesting his poor black support is due to homophobia, and complaints from black leaders that he misrepresented their level of support for him.

All this means that Biden does not necessarily need to be alarmed by Buttigieg’s rise in Iowa, Iowa Ipsos vice president and polling expert Clifford Young told Vox, and that — at least for now — it is difficult to predict how a Buttigieg win in that state (which remains, despite his polling there, one possible outcome of many) would affect races in New Hampshire or South Carolina. It also provides an opening for a candidate of similar ideology who is more readily able to build a diverse coalition.

“Buttigieg performs better than anyone, and that suggests he has pretty good potential,” Young said. “It doesn’t mean he’s going to realize it, but he does.”

Sanders is back after a health scare and racking up endorsements — though his polling remains consistent

Sanders is not having the same sort of moment. His support nationally has been incredibly consistent for months. Since May, his polling average has vacillated between 14 and 18 percent, and his support in early states has been relatively steady as well, ranging from the mid-teens to the low 20s. Morning Consult’s early state polling average puts him at 20 percent.

Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer told the Des Moines Register a large part of this consistency has to do with how engaged Sanders’s backers are. In Iowa, 51 percent of these voters said they were “extremely enthusiastic” about the senator’s candidacy; the next closest candidate in terms of enthusiasm was Warren, of whom 35 percent of her backers said they are extremely enthusiastic.

“The part that is impressive is the enthusiasm that his supporters have. He might not be growing his base, but they’re stuck with him — in the good way,” Selzer said. “It feels like they will not budge.”


Bridget Bennett/AFP via Getty Images
Supporters of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) rally at “First in the West” event in Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 17, 2019.

Young told Vox a large part of this is due to the fact voters are very familiar with Sanders following his 2016 presidential run, and cautioned having such a well defined base of support can limit one’s ability to win over new supporters, particularly in a crowded field.

“He’s in some ways, tapped out in terms of his potential,” Young said. “Someone like Buttigieg or [Sen. Kamala] Harris … those are example of candidates that have much more potential, much more upside. Someone like Sanders, he can only lose ground — Biden as well.”

Young said there’s one clear way for Sanders (and Biden) to win new fans: “It’s going to be more through differentiation that they’re going to improve their lead or keep their position than name recognition.”

In recent weeks, Sanders has stood out for his winning of high-profile endorsements. Following a campaign break due to a heart attack, Sanders received the backing of the House of Representatives’ most visible progressives: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. He’s also won cosigns from a number of musicians, including TI and Jack White.

Having these powerful and notable surrogates has not seemed to affect Sanders’s polling. But he remains consistently competitive, and is a fundraising powerhouse, recently announcing his campaign has received 4 million individual donations. At the end of the third quarter, he had the largest fundraising haul — $25.3 million — and with the most cash on hand: $33.7 million. He has the money to stay in the race until the very end, and to pay for a lot more ads in the weeks ahead of the first contests.

With just months to go, few really know who they want to vote for

Despite the best efforts of the four frontrunners, it is not clear they have actually won voters over in any lasting way. Support for each is soft, particularly in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

In Iowa, for instance, 62 percent of respondents told the Register they may change their minds before the caucuses. In New Hampshire, a state whose voters pride themselves on weighing options until Election Day, Quinnipiac found that number to be 61 percent, and perhaps worryingly for Warren and Buttigieg, the majority of their supporters responded they weren’t sure they’d end up voting for them — 70 and 73 percent, respectively.

All this suggests that who is on top now could be irrelevant. Looking at who is leading now only tells us who is leading now, not who will win the early states, and certainly not who will win the nomination. It could be Biden, it could be Warren, it could even be Julián Castro or Amy Klobuchar.


Scott Olson/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate, former HUD Secretary Julián Castro marches with supporters at the Polk County Democrats’ Steak Fry, in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 21, 2019.

And perhaps this is why, despite voters on the state and national levels all telling pollsters they have plenty of choices and don’t want any more, Patrick announced recently he is entering the race and Bloomberg has hinted he might do the same.

The only thing voters have made clear beyond that they are largely satisfied with the number of current choices, is that what they want most in a nominee is someone who can defeat President Donald Trump.

A November Fox News poll of Nevada voters found 74 percent said beating Trump is the most important thing in a candidate; 63 percent of Iowans told the Register having a nominee capable of defeating Trump is more important than having one with policies they support. A national November Economist/YouGov poll found 65 percent of respondents saying it’s more important to have a nominee who can beat Trump than one who aligns with their personal policy positions.

Again, there is no consensus on who that person is, and each candidate has made the case for their own electability many times over. It won’t be clear who Democrats think stands the best chance until next year, and we’re still a year away from knowing whether those primary voters will be correct.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/333UQrf

Gender equity was at the forefront of the fifth Democratic debate

Democratic presidential hopeful California Senator Kamala Harris spoke about paid parental leave and the gender wage gap during the fifth Democratic primary debate in Atlanta, Georgia on November 20, 2019. | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

More women involved in the Democratic debate changed the conversation.

In a marked contrast from several past debates, gender equity took center stage at Wednesday’s Democratic debate, which featured wide-ranging discussion about paid family leave, abortion rights, and the higher standards that women candidates must meet.

Though Democrats’ 2020 presidential field is one of the most diverse in history, addressing gender disparities hasn’t always been a major focus on the debate stage, as Vox’s Anna North has written. Previous debates have barely glanced over subjects including equal pay. This week’s debate, only the third primary debate to ever feature an all-female panel of moderators, was different.

It kicked off with a major moment on paid family leave, following a question on the subject of child care from the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker. As Parker noted, the costs of child care can be substantial for families.

“There are only two countries in the world that don’t have paid family leave for new moms. The United States of America and Papua New Guinea,” entrepreneur Andrew Yang emphasized. “That is the entire list and we need to get off that list as as soon as possible.”

Yang’s comment highlighted a startling reality: Among developed countries, the US is the only one that does not have a paid leave program, a policy that’s been shown to increase women’s workforce participation, reduce family’s reliance on public assistance, and improve children’s health outcomes.

Sen. Kamala Harris emphasized just as much in her response on the topic, which called out the extensive work that women do on caregiving and how transformative paid leave could be for women’s ability to return to work.

“Many women are having to make a very difficult choice about whether they’re going to leave a profession for which they have a passion to care for their family, or whether they’re going to give up a paycheck, which is part of what that family relies on,” she said.

In her response, Harris also called out the persistence of the gender wage gap and how it’s even wider for women of color. Throughout the night, she was a leading voice on the subject of tackling such inequities, later highlighting how African American women are seen as one of the most dedicated voter bases for the Democratic Party, but neglected when it comes to policy priorities:

When black women are three to four times more likely to die in connection with childbirth in America, when the sons of black women will die because of gun violence more than any other cause of death, when black women make 61 cents on the dollar as compared to all women who tragically make 80 cents on the dollar, the question has to be where you been and what are you going to do? And do you understand what the people want?

Harris was among the lawmakers to return to this subject during the evening, but she was far from alone. Not only did the moderators raise numerous questions about these topics, several candidates highlighted the need to tackle the gender disparities that persist in America today.

It’s a dynamic that spoke to the expansive representation of both the journalists and candidates onstage.

Moderators asked multiple questions touching on gender disparities

Abortion rights was extensively discussed during the debate as well, in the wake of Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards’s recent reelection victory. Although Edwards is a Democrat, he is anti-abortion and has helped sign one of the most stringent abortion laws in the country. Candidates were asked whether Edwards’s leadership still has a role in the party, to which Sen. Elizabeth Warren offered a fiery response defending abortion rights.

Warren emphasized that access to abortions was also an economic issue, and that potential bans would likely hurt low income women the most.

“I believe that abortion rights are human rights. I believe that they are also economic rights,” Warren said. “Understand this. When someone makes abortion illegal in America, rich women will still get abortions. It’s just going to fall hard on poor women.”

In addition to the focus on a slew of policies, Sen. Amy Klobuchar emphasized that the presidential race itself was an uneven playing field for male and female candidates, when confronted with comments she had previously made referencing Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy.

“Women are held to a higher standard,” she said. “Otherwise we could play a game called name your favorite woman president, which we can’t do because it has all been men. And all vice presidents being men.”

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2qlBr85

4 winners and 3 losers from the November Democratic debate

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) speaks as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) listens during the Democratic Presidential Debate. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Winner: Cory Booker. Loser: asylum seekers.

The November Democratic presidential debate in Atlanta came at the end of a marathon day of political news, marked by US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s historic testimony before the House Intelligence Committee confirming that President Donald Trump tied military aid to Ukraine to investigations into the Biden family. Indeed, moderator Rachel Maddow opened the debate with a question about the Sondland testimony.

But the rest of the night barely touched on the impeachment process, swerving from agricultural policy to wealth taxes to climate to military intervention. It was a fairly solid night for the field as a whole, with even bottom-tier candidates like Tom Steyer having standout moments.

Some, though, won more than others. Here’s who ended the night up, and who ended up worse than they started.

Winner: Pete Buttigieg

The South Bend, Indiana, mayor is having a moment. He’s skyrocketed to the top of the RealClearPolitics average of the polls in Iowa, the first state to vote in the primaries. He’s also creeping up in New Hampshire. At Wednesday’s debate, Buttigieg had one goal: keep that momentum going.

He succeeded. Throughout the debate, Buttigieg avoided attacks from his high-polling opponents on the debate stage, while using his time to push his message as an outsider and a more moderate candidate who could unite the country.


Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopeful Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg speaks during the fifth Democratic primary debate.

When Buttigieg was asked about perhaps his biggest weakness — his lack of experience — he managed to spin the question positively, framing himself as an outsider: “I get it’s not traditional establishment Washington experience, but I would argue we need something very different right now. In order to defeat this president, we need somebody who can go toe-to-toe who actually comes from the kinds of communities that he’s been appealing to.”

In a campaign that has focused a lot on wealth inequality and the role of billionaires in the political system, Buttigieg also made the point that he’s as far removed from a billionaire as anyone on the debate stage: “I don’t talk a big game about helping the working class while helicoptering between golf courses with my name on them. I don’t even golf. As a matter of fact, I never thought I’d be on a Forbes magazine list, but they did one of all the candidates by wealth, and I am literally the least wealthy person on this stage.”

And yes, he also used his time to directly pander to the Iowa voters he’s hoping to help carry his campaign early on — dedicating an answer about farming subsidies to get into granular details about President Trump’s trade war and how soybean farmers are particularly struggling as a result of the current administration’s policies, which are issues that are hurting Trump in Iowa.

Just how big of a role these debates play in elections is a genuine question. But at the very least, Buttigieg didn’t seem to hurt himself.

—German Lopez

Winner: Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Elizabeth Warren walked into Wednesday’s debate in a perhaps weaker position than she has been in previous showdowns — Pete Buttigieg’s star is rising in Iowa, and she’s been bogged down in the weeds of Medicare-for-all plans for weeks. But she demonstrated that, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, her framework still anchors much of the conversation on issues such as the economy and health care. And she got to remind voters of one of her most popular proposals: the wealth tax, or, as she’s branded it, two cents.


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks as former Vice President Joe Biden listens during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

“When you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make it [to] the top one-tenth of one percent big, pitch in two cents, so everybody else gets a chance to make it,” the Massachusetts Democrat said on Wednesday.

Under her plan, Americans with fortunes of more than $50 million would pay a 2 percent annual tax (where she gets the “two cents” from); for those with more than $1 billion, that tax would rise to 3 percent. It’s a popular idea, and Warren knows it, even if it’s earned her some billionaire enemies. “Regardless of party affiliation, people understand across this country our government is working better and better for the billionaires, for the rich, for the well-connected, and worse and worse for everyone else,” she said.

Sen. Cory Booker tried to push Warren on the merits of the wealth tax proposal. He argued that while tax loopholes and cheating are a problem, Democrats also need to talk about growth. He said the wealth tax is “cumbersome” and hard to evaluate. “We can get the same amount of revenue through just taxation,” he said.

But Warren successfully parried, saying, “Just the idea of what is behind, what is fair: today, the 99 percent in America are on track to pay about 7.2 percent of their total wealth in taxes. The top one tenth of 1 percent that I want to say pay 2 cents more, they’ll pay 3.2 percent more in America. I’m tired of free-loading billionaires.”

The rest of the night was solid for Warren — she defended abortion rights, spoke about race, and highlighted her focus on rooting out corruption — and preserved her position in the 2020 race.

— Emily Stewart

Winner: Cory Booker

For about 1 hour and 40 minutes, Cory Booker had a fairly standard, uneventful debate. He got in a good line about being the other Rhodes Scholar mayor on the stage, a light jab at Pete Buttigieg that didn’t land with much force. He had a confusing and forgettable exchange with Elizabeth Warren critiquing her wealth tax plan on technical grounds — a fair hit, but one better reserved for a policy paper than the debate stage.

Then the topic came to the black vote, and Booker broke through.


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) speaks as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) listens during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

One of the many challenges facing his campaign so far — and Sen. Kamala Harris’s — has been his failure to break through with black voters nationwide and in South Carolina (where black voters make up a big part of the Democratic primary electorate). Former Vice President Joe Biden’s name recognition and connection to the Obama presidency have apparently been sufficient to swamp any arguments Booker and Harris have tried to make for themselves as superior champions of black voters’ interests.

So Booker decided to fight the fight directly. He first brushed off Buttigieg’s attempts to cater to black voters by noting he’s “been one since I turned 18,” and didn’t “need a focus group” to tell him what black voters think and value — a nice move that subtly undermined the implicit premise behind the question that there’s a monolithic “black vote” to be won en masse.

But then he turned to Joe Biden, and turned an electability question about race into a concrete policy disagreement, noting Joe Biden’s opposition to nationwide marijuana legalization, underlining how devastating marijuana criminalization has been to black men and black communities, and pushing Biden into an embarrassing, fumbling answer in which he claimed the support of the “the only African American woman who’s been elected to the Senate” — to which Booker simply replied, “No, the other one is here,” pointing to Harris.

To break into Biden’s base of black support, Booker needed to draw out clear policy differences with Biden and also to challenge Biden’s claims to respect and revere the black community. He didn’t even need to do the latter himself — he just put an obstacle in front of Biden and just watched as Biden tripped over it.

Dylan Matthews

Winner: Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams was very narrowly ahead in polling averages in her 2018 race to become governor of Georgia, but when the votes were counted, she lost. Yet on the debate stage Wednesday night, she was a winner — robbed of her rightful victory.

“It was the voter suppression, particularly of African-American communities, that prevented us from having a governor Stacey Abrams right now,” Booker said early in the evening, in a debate held in Abrams’s home state. His Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar said that under a fair system, “Stacey Abrams would be governor of this state.” And Bernie Sanders referred to “voter suppression which cost the democratic party a governorship here in this state.”


Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Democratic politician Stacey Abrams speaks to reporters before the Democratic Presidential Debate.

This is a narrative that’s been building for a year in the Democratic Party, and the remarks on stage Wednesday merely echoed things that Sen. Kamala Harris and others have been saying for months.

There are fair questions to raise about election administration in Georgia and other states. But it is worth complicating this narrative somewhat. Turnout in Georgia in 2018 was far higher than usual for a midterm election, and according to the Democratic data firm Catalyst, the African American share of the electorate was unusually high rather than unusually low. But what happened is that while Abrams improved on Hillary Clinton’s performance with white voters, she actually lost ground relative to Clinton with African Americans — winning by “only” 90 percentage points rather than 94.

But on Wednesday night, that all didn’t matter. The candidates on stage played to the home crowd, and made Abrams a winner — at least for a night.

Matthew Yglesias

Loser: Joe Biden

On paper, Joe Biden has a strong claim to the Democratic nomination. He was the vice president to a president who is still very popular among Democrats, and he has a record of connecting to the white working class voters that President Trump has peeled off from the Democratic Party.

But these debates have not shown Biden at his best. That was on display on Wednesday. Biden’s answers were long-winded, hard to follow, and at times ended abruptly with little explanation.


Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former Vice President Joe Biden participate of the fifth Democratic primary debate.

One awkward moment came when Booker called Biden out for his opposition to marijuana legalization — a position that makes Biden more conservative than the median Republican on this issue, based on recent polls. In explaining his political appeal, Biden responded, “I’m part of that Obama coalition. I come out of a black community in terms of my support” — a weird claim for a white candidate. He then suggested that the “only” black woman elected to the US Senate endorsed him, ignoring that one of the black women elected to the Senate, Harris, was right there on stage literally debating him. The whole moment drew laughter from the crowd and candidates.

The awkwardness came through even when Biden should have had good moments. He was asked in the debate about what he will do about the Me Too movement, and started talking about domestic violence — an obvious pivot for someone who helped pass the original Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s. Biden at first gave a solid answer on his record. Then he went with an unfortunate metaphor: “So we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching at it.” That was … not the best choice of words for this issue.

These problems are compounded by real questions about Biden’s age — he turned 77 on Wednesday — and if he’s still fit for the presidency. When Biden gives stumbling and at times incoherent answers, he does little to dispel those concerns.

— German Lopez

Loser: Asylum seekers

Despite the meaty discussion of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro’s proposal to decriminalize border crossings early in the Democratic primary race, immigration has received a cursory treatment in the debates ever since. Wednesday night’s debate was no different.

The only question touching upon immigration was about President Trump’s border wall — perhaps the least effective of his immigration policies, if the flashiest. There was no mention, meanwhile, of how Trump has systematically put asylum nearly out of reach for most migrants arriving at the southern border.

Just this week, the administration started sending migrants back to Guatemala under one of a series of agreements it has brokered in Central America in recent months. But there’s also the administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy — under which 57,000 migrants have been sent back to Mexico while they await a decision on their US asylum applications — and its rule preventing migrants from being granted asylum if they passed through any country other than their own before arriving in the US.

Democratic candidates have spoken out against Trump policies that have already incited public outrage, denouncing the administration’s practice of separating families at the border and calling for protections for unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children known as DREAMers. “A great nation does not separate children from their families,” Elizabeth Warren said Wednesday.

But the candidates haven’t given the same attention to the demise of asylum under Trump. And the one candidate who keeps talking about it (Castro) didn’t make the cut for the debate stage.

It’s arguably the single biggest development in immigration policy under the Trump administration and an unprecedented departure from the US’s tradition of protecting vulnerable populations — and Democrats are overlooking it.

— Nicole Narea

Loser: Health care

Health care has been the most discussed topic at the Democratic debates up until now, but when it came up on Wednesday, nobody’s heart seemed to be in it.

It was featured in Bernie Sanders’s opening, as it always is. But after that, it was Pete Buttigieg — who had attacked Elizabeth Warren in particular over Medicare-for-all at the last debate — who made an intentional pivot to health care. He framed it as part of his answer about how he would try to bridge partisan divisions in Washington; he has attacked the single-payer plan supported by Sanders and Warren as potentially too politically divisive. He prefers a public option insurance plan that anybody could buy into.

”On health care, the reason I insist on Medicare-for-all-who-want-it as the strategy to deliver on that goal we share of universal health care is that that is something that as a governing strategy we can unify the American people around,” he said.

Warren, who put out a plan last week on how she would get to Medicare-for-all, was asked whether her position could cost her votes (she said it wouldn’t, she has a plan). Sanders also had his say (the US system is “dysfunctional”) as did Biden (Medicare-for-all “couldn’t pass the United States Senate right now with Democrats”).

But there wasn’t really any substantive back-and-forth, at least compared to past debates. The candidates and the moderators went through the motions for the health care segment and moved on. Fair enough. Health care had gotten twice as much discussion as foreign policy and other important issues like climate change and trade in previous debates.

Everybody hit their marks Wednesday, but it seemed everyone was happy to take a breather from health care.

— Dylan Scott

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/347Bbbm

It took a debate with all-female moderators to ask Democrats about paid family leave

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) former tech executive Andrew Yang, and Tom Steyer (right) listen as Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The answers weren’t great, but the question mattered.

On Wednesday, something unheard of happened on the 2020 Democratic debate stage: Moderators asked candidates what they would do about high child care costs and the lack of paid parental leave in the US.

It just took five debates and a panel of all-women moderators for this to happen.

Ashley Parker, a White House reporter for the Washington Post, pointed out that child care and paid family leave are important issues to many voters.

“Here in Georgia, the average price of infant daycare can be as much as $8,500 per child per year. That’s more than in-state tuition at a public college in Georgia. Mr. Yang, what would you do as president to ease that financial burden?” she asked.

Yang responded by saying that the US is one of only two countries without mandated paid family leave laws (the other being Papua New Guinea). That’s not entirely true. There are a handful of small countries without it, such as Suriname and Lesotho. But he was pointing to a big problem: The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t guarantee new parents paid time off.


Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopeful tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang speaks during the fifth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season.

His solution? Universal basic income, giving families up to $2,000 a month to spend on child care. Or with the money, a parent could stay home and care for the child, an idea he was eager to push.

“We should not be pushing everyone to leave the home and go to the work force,” Yang responded. “Many parents see that tradeoff and say if they leave the home and go to work, they’d be spending all that money on child care anyway. In many cases, it would we better if the parent stayed with the child.”

Parker then turned to Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris.

“Senator Harris, you’re one of the candidates proposing legislation to guarantee up to six months of paid family leave,” she said. “And Senator Klobuchar, you’re one of the candidates proposing up to three months. I want to hear from both of you on this, starting with you, Senator Klobuchar. Why three months?”

Klobuchar threw shade at Harris’s proposal, by suggesting that six months of paid family leave would cost the government too much money and that three months is good enough.

“We have an obligation as a party to be fiscally responsible,” she answered. “Yes, think big, but make sure we have people’s backs and are honest with them about what we can pay for.”


Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) speaks during the Democratic primary debate.

Klobuchar is one of several 2020 candidates who endorse Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s signature legislative proposal, the Family Act. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg have, too. That plan provides three months of paid leave to families, with up to 66 percent of each worker’s income covered by a small increase to payroll taxes (paid by workers and employers). Both parents could each use the benefit when they choose to.

In October, Harris went even further than her peers and proposed the most generous paid family leave plan yet: six months. That would put the United States in line with most of the world’s developed countries and with what researchers believe to be an ideal amount of time. It would also probably cost a lot of money, and Harris has given few details about how it would be funded.


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

When Parker asked her how she would pay for it, Harris demurred. Instead she focused on the fact that caregiving is a job that usually falls to women, but that three months is not enough time for them to juggle all their responsibilities.

“Many women are having to make a very difficult choice about whether they’re going to leave a profession for which they have a passion to care for their family, or whether they’re going to give up a paycheck, which is part of what that family relies on,” She answered. “So six months paid family leave is meant to adjust to the reality of women’s lives today.”

Their answers didn’t add much to the debate — but it was the that question mattered.

Parental leave is an issue that matters to voters

Six months of paid parental leave may seem radical, but it’s really not. Researchers consider six months of paid parental leave ideal to strike a balance between a child’s healthcare needs and the needs of a parent’s employer.

The idea of a government-run program to provide parental leave is also well supported by voters. About 74 percent of registered US voters in 2016 said the government should require businesses to offer employees paid parental leave. When you break down poll numbers, the support is overwhelming across genders, political parties, and even income groups.

Another survey shows that 82 percent of voters believe working mothers should get paid maternity leave. Whether the respondent was Republicans or Democrats, male or female, didn’t matter — a majority support the idea that both mothers and fathers should get paid time off.

In other words, it’s a safe political issue for Democrats and Republicans to tackle, if only Republicans weren’t so hesitant to make businesses pay part — or all — of the cost. Right now, under federal law, workers can take up to four months of leave after the birth or adoption of a child. But there is no requirement that it be paid.

Nearly every industrialized country in the world provides working mothers with at least three months of paid maternity leave — the minimum recommended by the United Nations’ International Labour Organization. In most of those countries, employers and employees pay a tax to fund the benefit. Canada has this type of system, which allows parents to take a year of leave while receiving 55 percent of their salary the entire time (up to 80 percent of wages are covered for low-income workers).

Some US businesses voluntarily offer paid parental leave to their workers, but only about one in 10 workers in the country get such a benefit from their employer. Low-wage workers are the least likely to get it. In response to federal inaction on the issue, several states have started requiring employers to provide some paid leave: California, New York, and the District of Columbia are among those that do.

Research shows that paid-leave programs improve child health, promote gender equality, and help keep women in the workforce. Studies indicate that California’s paid-leave law, which went into effect in 2004, led to an increase in work hours and income for mothers with young children. And paid leave has been linked to lower poverty rates in 18 countries.

Coming up with an effective paid parental leave system in the United States isn’t hard. The hard part is getting Republicans to agree that businesses should pay for some of it. Harris and Klobuchar didn’t mention how they would persuade a potentially divided Congress to pass any paid-leave program if they made it to the White House. But getting presidential candidates to discuss parental leave at all is a pretty good start.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/35lcjwP

The most substantive answers from November’s Democratic debate

Democratic presidential hopefuls Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Former Vice President Joe Biden participate in the fifth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Warren on impeachment, Harris on childcare, and more.

The November 2019 Democratic debate, held on a very long day after some very important impeachment hearings, had its fair share of zingers.

This is not a post about those. It’s about the best and most substantive answers from the night — the high-level responses that make the stakes of the race clear.

These are the kinds of answers that define important elements of the candidates’ message and help us understand the reason they are running. They should illuminate big-deal issues. They may not have the most pizzazz, but they deal with the sort of questions that voters should be thinking about in both the primary and general election.

So here are a few moments from Wednesday’s debate worth paying attention to:.

Warren on impeachment


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

Given the gravity of today’s impeachment hearings, in which US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland pointed the finger directly at President Trump, moderator Rachel Maddow opened the debate by asking about impeachment. She asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren how she’d approach getting Republican votes for impeachment in the Senate, and Warren responded with a thoughtful answer about the way the US does diplomacy:

MADDOW: Senator Warren, you have said already that you’ve seen enough to convict the president and remove him from office. You and four of your colleagues on this stage tonight who are also US Senators may soon have to take that vote. Will you try to convince your Republican colleagues in the Senate to vote the same way? And if so, how?

WARREN: Of course I will. And the obvious answer is to say first read the Mueller report. All 442 pages of it that showed how the president tried to obstruct justice. And when congress failed to act at that that moment, and that the president felt free to break the law again and again and again. And that’s what’s happened with Ukraine. We have to establish the principle no one is above the law. We have a constitutional responsibility, and we need to meet it.

But I want to add one more part based on today’s testimony, and that is how did Ambassador Sondland get there. You know, this is not a man who had any qualifications except one. He wrote a check for a million dollars. And that tells us about what’s happening in Washington, the corruption. How money buys its way into Washington. You know, I raised this months ago about the whole notion that donors think they’re going to get ambassadorships on the other side.

And I’ve taken a pledge. Anyone who wants to give me a big donation, don’t ask to be an ambassador because I’m not going to have that happen. I asked everyone who’s running for president to join me in that. And not a single person has so far. I hope what we saw today during the testimony means lots of people will sign-on and say we are not going to give away the ambassador posts to the highest bidder.

What’s interesting here isn’t the direct answer to the question of how she’d approach the Senate. It’s the way that Warren links the Ukraine scandal to institutionalized corruption and the influence of big money, the central themes of her campaign.

Sondland was obviously knee-deep in the scandal. Warren’s point is that someone who was a career diplomat, and not a rich guy qualified primarily by virtue of his donations to the Trump inaugural committee, maybe wouldn’t have gone along with it for as long as he did.

Pay-for-play in the electoral system led to corruption once the candidate was in the Oval Office: a perfect example of Warren’s campaign message about the harm done to democracy by inequality.

— Zack Beauchamp

Biden on prosecuting Trump


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

Vice President Joe Biden had some cringey moments during the debate. But his answer to a question from Maddow about whether Trump should be prosecuted hit on some really key points about the Trump presidency and the proper role of law enforcement in the American political system:

MADDOW: When President Ford pardoned President Nixon he said it was to heal the country. Would you support a potential criminal investigation into President Trump after he leaves office even if you thought it might further inflame the country’s divisions?

BIDEN: Look, I would not direct my Justice Department like this president does. I’d let them make their independent judgment. I would not dictate who should be prosecuted or who should be exonerated. That’s not the role of the president of the United States. It’s the attorney general of the United States, not the president’s attorney — private attorney.

So I would, whatever was determined by the attorney general I supported that I appointed, let them make an independent judgment. If that was the judgment that he violated the law and he should be, in fact, criminally prosecuted, then so be it. But I would not direct it.

One of the most worrying parts of the Trump presidency, for people like me concerned about the fundamental health of American democracy, has been the way in which he’s twisted the Justice Department toward his own political ends. Trump has systematically pressured his attorneys general and the the FBI to back off any oversight of his own conduct and, at times, go after his enemy. Trump has found his perfect enabler in current Attorney General William Barr.

But one of the other major problems for our democracy is the lack of elite accountability: the way in which powerful political and financial actors can get away with wrongdoing and even outright criminality without punishment. Nixon got pardoned for Watergate, the architects of George W. Bush’s torture policy got off scot-free, and some of the financial executives responsible for the financial crisis left their firms with golden parachutes. What’s the incentive for the elites to do better if they aren’t punished?

Biden’s answer here deftly threads the needle between these two imperatives. He commits to maintaining the independence of the Justice Department, setting right one Trump-era ill, while also leaving the door open for prosecuting Trump for any actual misbehavior and thus real elite accountability. It’s a very smart answer to a very tricky question.

— Zack Beauchamp

Bernie on Saudi Arabia


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Former Vice President Joe Biden listens as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has led a bipartisan pushback against Saudi Arabia in the Senate, and on Wednesday night, he made the case, briefly but convincingly, that the United States should reexamine its relationship with the kingdom. And in doing so, he offered a strong critique of Trump’s zero-sum foreign policy.

The moderators asked Sanders to follow up on answers from former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar on whether, as president, either would push back on Saudi Arabia on issues like the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. And then Sanders got his moment:

I think I may have been the first person up here to make it clear that Saudi Arabia not only murdered Khashoggi, but this is a brutal dictatorship which does everything it can to crush democracy, treats women as third-class citizens.

And when we rethink our American foreign policy, what we have got to know is that Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally. We have got to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia together in a room under American leadership and say we are sick and tired of us spending huge amounts of money and human resources because of your conflicts.

And by the way, the same thing goes with Israel and the Palestinians. It is no longer good enough for us simply to be pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel. But we must treat the Palestinian people as well with the respect and dignity that they deserve. What is going on in Gaza right now, where youth unemployment is 70 percent or 80 percent, is unsustainable. So we need to be rethinking who our allies are around the world, work with the United Nations and not continue to support brutal dictatorships.

Sanders states unequivocally that “Saudi Arabia is not an ally,” which is not just a break with the Trump administration, but also with its predecessors. It might be a little naive to say the US has to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together; those two countries have been regional rivals for decades. But the larger point he’s making is relevant: the US may not continue to reflexively side with Iran against Saudi Arabia. It’s a not-so-subtle critique of Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

Sanders’s pivot to the Israel-Palestinian conflict made a similar point: US foreign policy doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Sanders himself has recently condemned attacks on Israel launched from Gaza but he’s also been openly critical of Israel’s blockade.

The biggest takeaway from Sanders’s speech is how much his own foreign policy chops have improved. In 2016, Sanders’s lack of foreign policy credentials was seen as a weakness in his candidacy. His progressive foreign policy vision will certainly have its critics. But he’s offering some of the clearest and best-defined positions on dealing with America’s challenges overseas.

— Jen Kirby

Harris on child care


Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopeful California Senator Kamala Harris speaks during the fifth Democratic primary debate.

Wednesday’s debate was the first with a crew of all-women moderators, and they asked several questions about family issues that had been neglected in previous debates, including paid family leave.

Harris’s explanation of her paid leave plan made an economic case, tying it into the broader issue of equal pay. Here’s the key exchange:

PARKER: No parent in the United States is federally guaranteed a single day of paid leave when they have a new baby. A number of you on stage tonight have plans to address this. Senator Harris, you’re one of the candidates proposing legislation to guarantee up to six months of paid family leave… Why six months and also how would you pay for that?

Harris: Sure. And everybody please visit my website kamalaharris.org for the details on everything I talk about. So part of how I believe we’re going to win this election is it is going to be because we are focused on the future. We are focused on the challenges that are presented today and not trying to bring back yesterday to solve tomorrow.

So on paid family leave, it is no longer the case in America that people have having children in their 20s. People are having children in their 30s, often in their 40s, which means that these families and parents are often raising young children and taking care of their parents, which requires a lot of work — from traveling back and forth to a hospital to day care to all of the activities that are required, much less the health care needs that are required. And what we are seeing in America today is the burden principally falls on women to do that work. And many women are having to make a very difficult choice, whether they’re going to leave a profession for which they have a passion to care for their family, or whether they’re going to give up a paycheck that is part of what that family relies on.

So six months paid family leave is meant to, and is designed to, adjust to the reality of women’s lives today. The reality also is that women are not paid equal for equal work in America. We passed the equal pay act in 1963, but fast forward to the year of our lord 2019 and women are paid 80 cents on the dollar, black women 61 cents, Native-American women 58 cents, Latinas 53 cents. So my policy is about, there’s a whole collection of work that I’m doing that is focused on women and working women in America and the inequities and therefore the injustice that women in America are facing that needs to be resolved and addressed.

Paid leave would ensure that caregivers have financial support for at least a fraction of the time they spend on this work. According to the National Center on Caregiving, the monetary value of “informal” long-term care provided by women for sick or older family members amounts to at least $148 billion on an annual basis. A 2012 study from the National Partnership for Women & Families found that women who’ve been able to take paid leave following childbirth are more likely to return to the workforce nine to 12 months afterward, compared to those who do not.

But despite being a really important policy issue, it’s one that’s gotten little focus in the 2020 race thus far. Harris didn’t just shine a spotlight on it, but made the case for why it’s a key part of addressing larger systemic disparities.

— Li Zhou

Booker on criminal justice and marijuana


Alex Wong/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) speaks as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) listen during the Democratic Presidential Debate.

Cory Booker has spent much of the debates acting as a uniter who tries to get everyone on stage to get along. But on Wednesday, Booker broke away from his typical message with a sharp attack on Biden about his stance on marijuana legalization:

I have a lot of respect for the Vice President. He has sworn me into my office and he’s a hero. This week I hear him literally say that I don’t think we should legalize marijuana. I thought you might have been high when you said it. And let me tell you because marijuana — marijuana in our country is already legal for privileged people. And it’s — the war on drugs has been a war on black and brown people. So let me just say this, with more African Americans under criminal supervision in America than all the slaves since 1850, do not roll up into communities and not talk directly to issues that are going to relate to the liberation of children. Because there are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while there are people — our kids are in jail right now for those drug crimes.

The crux of Booker’s argument is that America faces a real crisis of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. This crisis disproportionately affects black Americans — who, for example, are more likely to be locked up for drugs, even though they’re not more likely to use or sell them. That’s what Booker was speaking to: While it seems unlikely that you’ll get arrested for marijuana as a white, privileged kid, it’s a bigger fear for people of color in the US.

Booker has long been an advocate in this area, pushing not just to lower prison sentences for drug offenses but going even further than the typical candidate by acknowledging that violent crime is also disproportionately punished. He was one of the first candidates on the stage to come out for legalizing marijuana, proposing a bill in the Senate that would even encourage states to legalize.

Based on recent polls, Biden’s opposition to legalization also puts him at odds with the great majority of Democrats, 75-plus percent of whom back legalization. Biden’s opposition even puts him at odds with the median Republican, with polls showing that even a majority of Republicans support legalization.

Politically, then, legalization should be low-hanging fruit — the kind of thing that one could expect a Democratic president to take action on to begin reeling back the war on drugs. Yet Biden is not quite there.

Biden has defended himself by arguing that, while he opposes national legalization, he will still let states legalize, and he’ll decriminalize at the federal level, letting out anyone who’s locked up for marijuana possession and expunging their records. But this still leaves a civil fine in place for marijuana, leaving some parts of government in charge of punishing people for using a drug that two-thirds of Americans say should be legal.

It’s an especially bad look for Biden. He has a long record of pushing for punitive criminal justice and drug policies — not just supporting but actually writing many of the laws in the 1980s and ’90s that helped shape America’s modern war on drugs. For Biden to hang on to marijuana prohibition, then, just reinforces one of the major concerns that criminal justice reformers like Booker have about him.

— German Lopez

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2O49Z7M

We read all 25 National Book Award finalists for 2019. Here’s what we thought.

A photo montage of book cover art.

Amanda Northrop/Vox

The Vox staff reviewed all the finalists in each of five categories: fiction, nonfiction, poetry, translated literature, and young people’s literature.

Every year, the National Book Foundation nominates 25 books — five fiction, five nonfiction, five poetry, five translated, five young adult — for the National Book Award, which celebrates the best of American literature. And every year (well, every year since 2014), we here at Vox read them all to help smart, busy people like you figure out which ones you’re interested in. Here are our thoughts on the class of 2019. The winners, which were announced November 20, are marked at the top of each category.

Fiction

Trust Exercise by Susan Choi — WINNER

Trust Exercise is a viciously elegant novel with a structure so sharp it cuts. It concerns a group of young teenagers at a performing arts high school, a bunch of high-achieving theater kids always trembling on the edge of hormonal overload. Two of them, David and Sarah, are enmeshed in a torrid will-they-won’t-they affair; their charismatic acting teacher, Mr. Kingsley, forces them to mine that relationship for stage material repeatedly in front of their classmates.

That’s the first section of Trust Exercise, and as compelling as it is — Choi renders the insular world of a theater kid’s high school with claustrophobic intensity — it’s mostly setup. The real story comes in the second two acts, in a twist I won’t reveal here. But what ensues is an extended meditation on trust: trust between lovers, between student and teacher, between actor and director — and the trust that is implicit and unspoken in novels themselves, that lies between the author who writes the novel, the characters who enact the novel, and the readers who read the novel.

Choi plays with our trust, dancing right up on the edge of betraying it, again and again throughout Trust Exercise. But she does it so skillfully, with such intelligence, that all you can feel as you read is delight at having been fooled so well.

—Constance Grady

Sabrina & Corina: Stories by Kali Fajardo-Anstine

Sabrina & Corina is a world inhabited as much by personal and political history, and the dead, as it is by Kali Fajardo-Anstine’s stunningly realistic protagonists.

The 11 stories in her literary debut are, first and foremost, a beautiful testament to Denver, Colorado’s indigenous Latina women. Whether it’s Corina reckoning with the murder of her strangled cousin Sabrina, who in the titular story becomes “another face in a line of tragedies that stretched back generations,” or children loving addict parents too “caught in [their] own undercurrent” to be present, the notion of legacies is of utmost importance. And those legacies concern familial blood, yes, but the long history of racism, poverty, and violence, too.

It’s not so much that Fajardo-Anstine’s female leads are haunted by this. It’s more that navigating the events of the past is a central part of their stories. These are women persisting, and doing so with poise and power. They are figuring out what it means to be a woman to have ties to Denver that run so much deeper than the white transplants who “came with the tech jobs and legalization of weed;” to reckon with mortality; and to try to love family, partners, and one’s self, even when that love is imperfect.

It’s a terrific debut, varied enough to be consumed all at once, but worth savoring.

—Caroline Houck

Black Leopard, Red Wolf by Marlon James

Black Leopard, Red Wolf is stunningly ambitious and epic. It’s also deliberately, and at times frustratingly, opaque.

The first in a planned trilogy, Black Leopard, Red Wolf takes place in a fantasy land rooted in pan-continental African folklore. There, a boy has gone missing, and a scrappy team of adventurers has assembled to find him.

The plan is that each volume of this trilogy will retell the story of the quest for the boy from a different point of view, Rashomon-style. In this first volume, we see it from the perspective of Tracker, who is basically a magical medieval African Philip Marlowe. Pointedly, Tracker has no emotional attachment at all to the missing boy; also pointedly, he tells us in the very first line that the boy is now dead.

This book is deliberately structured to thwart the reader’s desire for a traditional narrative arc. It’s also structured to thwart their desire for clarity. James withholds proper nouns from his sentences until the last possible moment, which means that as you read, you generally can’t tell who’s doing what at any given moment: you just get an impression of anonymous limbs tangled together in sex or battle. And that opacity seems to be key to James’s ambitions for this trilogy — but it also means that Black Wolf, Red Leopard can be a bit of a slog, because it is not interested in giving its readers anything solid to hold onto.

Still, James’s imagined landscape is lush with bloody and magical details, and the queer romances at the heart of the novel are immensely tender. If nothing else, this book is worth checking out for the sheer scale of the thing.

—Constance Grady

The Other Americans by Laila Lalami

Laila Lalami’s The Other Americans opens up with the protagonist, Nora, receiving the news that her father was killed in a hit and run. As she and her family grapple with this sudden loss, Nora finds herself on a mission to discover what actually happened to her father. But what she learns about her father’s life ends up disappointing her.

Even though Nora is the main character, each player has a chance to tell how her father’s death changed their life. And as their perspectives push up against Nora’s, Lalami begins to delve into the struggles of immigrant families. The chapters from Nora’s perspective juxtaposed with the ones from her mother’s show how both struggle with what it means to be Moroccan and American. Other chapters show readers how even an event as intimate as death can be inflected by your race, your ethnicity, and how safe you feel in the US.

And as Nora searches for answers, Lalami slowly reveals how the environment for Muslims, immigrants, and people of color in a post 9/11 US contributed to the chaos around the death of Nora’s father.

—Rajaa Elidrissi

Disappearing Earth by Julia Phillips

Julia Phillips’s riveting Disappearing Earth is technically a novel, but it reads more like a collection of short stories. The book is set in Kamchatka, a remote peninsula in Russia’s Far East that is inaccessible by land from the rest of the country, and starts with the disappearance of two young sisters, which nearly everyone across the small peninsula hears about. Each subsequent chapter, however, tells a new story from a new character’s perspective rather than following the missing girls’ story in a linear way.

Through these women’s stories, we get a glimpse of how the girls’ disappearance has rippled through the broader Kamchatka community, but we also hear more about how each of them struggle with the limitations they come up against in their everyday lives in Kamchatka. Some of the women are bored and trapped in unhappy relationships; others are frustrated by the lack of economic resources keeping them stuck in Kamchatka when they long to leave the peninsula and live in Europe; others grapple with the dynamics between white Russians and the indigenous Even people. The peninsula of Kamchatka is almost a character in and of itself, shaping how each of these women view the world and their opportunities within it. The stories seem disconnected at first, but the characters’ paths start to overlap toward the end of the book for a surprising ending that you won’t want to miss. It’s a breathtaking page-turner of a novel that covers some very 2019 themes, all while set against the beautiful backdrop of Kamchatka.

—Nisha Chittal

Nonfiction

The Yellow House by Sarah M. Broome — WINNER

I still haven’t been to New Orleans. And everything I know about New Orleans comes from friends’ stories (“it’s very humid, you’d hate it”), travel shows spotlighting the food (shrimp etouffee, beignets, gumbo with a roux dark as cocoa powder), and articles about how Katrina and its annihilative waters drowned the city; stories of how, to this day, the trauma of Katrina fundamentally changed the soul of New Orleans.

What this knowledge amounts to is superficial stuff that would pass at a cocktail hour. Sarah Broom’s revelatory memoir, The Yellow House, is not that.

Broom’s story is about Katrina, but it isn’t just about the life-shattering chaos of the storm. The Yellow House is about her family, the non-French Quarter pockets of New Orleans that America forgot about or chose to forget, and the myths of prosperity perched atop the rot of corruption. Ultimately, The Yellow House is about the price the city’s black men and women have paid for it.

Broom grafts these narratives onto the bones of her family’s yellow house, purchased by Broom’s mother Ivory Mae in 1961. Its appearance on the outside was a facade for its structural disorder the inside. The house witnessed what Broom’s family — Broom has seven siblings — did not show to their friends, the interior anarchy that never slipped beyond the home’s raw walls and broken doors.

Katrina’s cataclysmic fury destroyed the house, like it did New Orleans. But that’s just the beginning of Broom’s powerful story.

—Alex Abad-Santos

Thick: And Other Essays by Tressie McMillan Cottom

Thick: And Other Essays isn’t a conventional personal essay collection. But Dr. Tressie McMillan Cottom, who holds a PhD in and teaches sociology, makes it a point to bill it as an eight-piece “portrait of her own life.” She affirms that by focusing on contemporary black womanhood, digging into challenging concepts like the societal difference between “black blacks” and “black ethnics.” And with the title essay — about the size of her body in relation to white beauty standards — serving as table setting, Cottom’s intent becomes clear: She is defining the truth of her own existence, and deconstructing white Americans’ reactions to her doing so.

For the well-read black woman, Thick won’t be a consistently revelatory read. As Cottom herself notes in one of the later essays, there is a growing, if small, cohort of writers online and in print who do a great job covering the intersecting political and personal elements of black feminism. But Thick is nonetheless a significant — and very readable — academic exploration of topics like black girlhood, black intellectualism, and black aesthetics.

—Allegra Frank

What You Have Heard Is True: A Memoir of Witness and Resistance by Carolyn Forché

Poets write the best memoirs, and Carolyn Forché’s What You Have Heard is True is no exception. It’s Forché’s chronicle of a life-altering encounter with Leonel Gómez Vides, an activist who opened her eyes to what was going on in his native El Salvador: poverty, unrest, injustice, and much unease.

It was the late 1970s, and Forché, who had just published her first book of poetry, was teaching. But at Gómez’s invitation, she traveled from her home in California to El Salvador and then embarked on a tour around the country with Gómez. The book is a lyrical and pristinely disturbing recounting of that time, and how it awoke within her a calling.

The subtitle of What You Have Heard Is True is “A Memoir of Witness and Resistance” — two things, it seems, that Forché learned from Gómez are closely intertwined. He is constantly asking her to not just see what is going on around her as she travels with him, but witness it, to understand it and then gather the courage to speak and write of it.

The decades since are evidence that Forché took that charge seriously; since that time, she’s called herself a “poet of witness.” But though it’s prose, What You Have Heard is True is no less stunning than her poetry — sharp, unsparing, and never looking away.

—Alissa Wilkinson

The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present by David Treuer

Five hundred years after Columbus “sailed the ocean blue,” it’s impossible to buy into the white colonialist lore of America, land of the free. We are well aware of the slavery, slaughter, and rape of American Indians and the stripping away of their land and resources, which are the tenets of their spirituality. In The Heartbeat at Wounded Knee, however, David Treuer pushes the reader beyond this narrative of sadness, defeat, and cultures ruined. After the brutal massacre of 150 Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890, there was not simply “an Indian past” and “only an American future.” The story of American Indians is a testament of insistent, persistent survival.

Treuer weaves in written history, reportage, and personal stories to complete this record of who Indians are post-1890 and who they always have been; he is not content to let Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, a white man, be the last, defining word on the Indian. While some of the historical passages on legislative bills and treaties come across a little stiff compared to the intimate portraits — like a cousin learning to channel his rage through MMA fighting or the young Indian who is finding community online — these legal and congressional battles remain vital to understanding how Indians have endured.

To be clear, Treuer is not interested in happy, shiny anecdotes of Indians returning to old ways on the reservation or making successes away from it; he portrays the nuance: what it is like to carry your peoples’ history of fighting literal wars, anger, the bottle. The everyday living of raising kids, making mistakes, working rodeos, foraging for pinecones, selling weed. Being downright, utterly scrappy. The reality of the American Indian is very much the reality of America.

—Jessica Machado

Solitary: Unbroken by Four Decades in Solitary Confinement, My Story of Transformation and Hope by Albert Woodfox with Leslie George

Robert King, Herman Wallace, and Albert Woodfox were the Angola Three — three inmates of the notoriously harsh Louisiana State Penitentiary who each spent decades in solitary confinement. Woodfox, the last of the three to be freed, spent 42 years in solitary before his conviction was overturned in 2016. Solitary, his memoir of surviving the longest sustained period of solitary confinement in US history, is a vital first-hand account of carceral brutality, told with astonishing aplomb.

Woodfox and his cowriter Leslie George always use the same measured, even tone, whether they’re describing Woodfox’s childhood in the Treme, New Orleans brutal Sixth Ward, or long-ago crimes — knocking a girl out with a chair or borrowing buggy horses to ride them, desperate for any release he can get. That understatement becomes a strategy when Woodfox is sentenced to Angola — a prison erected on a former slave plantation — for robbery and abruptly enters a nightmare; it’s a scene that, like many others, makes use of the N-word to underline its generally unsparing view of violent racism.

Woodfox rattles off detail after detail of the hellscape he’s thrust into — a bogglingly complex ecosystem of violence and corruption. “It’s painful to remember how violent Angola was in those days,” he says at one point. “I don’t like to go into it.” But he does, with prose that shocks because it is so readable, plainspoken, and awful; by the time he’s recounting his experience of a claustrophobic panic attack while doing his first stretch in the 6-by-9 solitary confinement cell, a reader might feel claustrophobic, too.

It seems unthinkable that anything can be uplifting in such a place, but the collective spirit and sense of brotherhood among the Angola Three sustains and animates their long, grueling fight for freedom, even through the agony of Woodfox having his conviction finally overturned only for the state to retry and re-convict him. The laborious nature of court proceedings in this context is mainly a reminder that the system can dehumanize its victims in even the most trivial ways; Woodfox is never more passionate than when he’s tearing apart the unsourced and fabricated claims made about him in legal affidavits.

Such callous details, juxtaposed against the larger-than-life horrors of Angola, make Solitary a must-read look at the justice system, and of humanity struggling to endure in the most abject and frustrating conditions. “Don’t turn away from what happens in American prisons,” he writes, simply, in the end. After reading Solitary, you never will again.

Aja Romano

Poetry

Sight Lines by Arthur Sze — WINNER

Sze’s tenth volume of poetry is a kaleidoscope of juxtaposition, layered stacks of images from across time and space, presenting a deeply interconnected feel of the universe. Let me give you a taste:

“in the desert, a crater of radioactive glass—
assembling shards, he starts to repair a gray bowl with gold lacquer—
they ate psilocybin mushrooms, gazed at the pond, undressed—
hunting a turkey in the brush, he stops—”

Awash in nature and unafraid of science, Sze’s poems use languages’ sounds in a lovely way, while addressing the world’s horrors.

In some poems, he writes from the perspective of a voiceless, lowly natural thing — lichens, or in this example salt:

“… in Egypt I scrubbed the bodies of kings and
queens in Pakistan I zigzag upward through twenty-six miles
of tunnels before drawing my first breath in sunlight if you
heat a kiln to 2380 degrees and scatter me inside I vaporize
and bond with clay in this unseen moment a potter prays
because my pattern is out of his hands …”

—Susannah Locke

The Tradition by Jericho Brown

It’s always tricky for me, picking up a new book of poetry. I wonder, will it speak to me? Will it reward whatever work I have to put in to understand it? Fortunately, Jericho Brown’s The Tradition pays off on the first page (which opens with “Ganymede,” in which he reimagines the Greek myth: “I mean, don’t you want God/ to want you?”) and just keeps on giving.

The writing is clear and precise throughout; the topics are modern and rooted in the writer’s culture, but they’re still universal enough to speak to a reader outside that culture. It can be considered slander to call poems “accessible” — as though the only way poems can mean is through the hard work of unlocking all the doors and opening all the windows of a poem’s secret house. Brown’s poems are accessible the way your friends are accessible: They invite you in, sit you down, talk to you about things that matter in words that revel in their beauty. Please, let’s celebrate the radical accessibility of these poems.

Also, I am a sucker for form. Sonnets? Villanelles? Yes, please. When I read the first Duplex in the book (a form invented by Brown), I thought, “Ooh, nice trick, well executed.” But there were four more in the collection, each cleverer than the last, and as I read, I became a Jericho Brown fan for life. Writing is good words in good order; poetry is the best words in the best order. Brown’s words are in the best order possible.

—Elizabeth Crane

“I”: New and Selected Poems by Toi Derricotte

In this 298-page book, containing selections from 40 years of work plus more than 30 new poems, Toi Derricotte invites the reader into an intimate portrayal of trauma, struggle, and triumph. Many of the poems take the shape of stories, feeling like autobiography, a mix of musing and memories.

Derricote’s writing can be beautiful, horrific, and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny, as she explores identity, race, gender, and everyday delights. In one section, harrowing first-person accounts of child abuse live next to touching odes to a pet fish (“Joy is an act of resistance,” she writes). Another provides an unflinching perspective of giving birth without drugs.

Some of Derricotte’s most moving work addresses personal and collective trauma, like this section from the new poem “Pantoum for the Broken”:

Some forget but their bodies do inexplicable things.
We don’t know when or why or who broke in.
Sleepwalking, we go back to where it happens.
Not wanting to go back, we make it happen.

If we escaped, will we escape again?
I leapt from my body like a burning thing.
Not wanting to go back, I make it happen
until I hold the broken one, hold her and sing.

In another new poem, she writes, “I see what a great gift it is if a writer just truthfully records the way her mind moves.” Derricotte gives us that gift, too.

—Susannah Locke

Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky

For protest art, you can look to the novelists and essayists, but the ones who leave you feeling socked in the gut are the poets, and Ilya Kaminsky is aiming his blows straight at our churning stomach. His first full-length collection, Dancing in Odessa, was released in 2004, which means expectations were at a fever pitch for Deaf Republic. And by my lights, it doesn’t disappoint.

Deaf Republic is the story of a town, told in a series of poems, in which a young deaf boy named Petya is killed by soldiers as they seek to break up a protest. In response, the townspeople begin to feign deafness in the face of the soldiers, fomenting a revolution of a kind. But Kaminsky, who lives with hearing impairment and whose family fled his native Odessa when he was 16, seeking political asylum in the US, knows deafness firsthand and how to make it into a metaphor. It’s a double-edged sword, this deafness: On the one hand, it’s a silent but powerful protest; on the other, it suggests that we can shut ourselves off from one another’s suffering.

The opening poem, “We Lived Happily During the War,” positions the story that follows as partly, but explicitly, the American story:

And when they bombed other people’s houses, we

protested
but not enough, we opposed them but not

enough. I was
in my bed, around my bed America

was falling: invisible house by invisible house by invisible house.

And the final poem, ironically titled “In a Time of Peace,” begins by reminding Americans that this story, of Petya and the deaf town, is ours:

Ours is a country in which a boy shot by police lies on the pavement
for hours.
We see in his open mouth
the nakedness
of the whole nation.
We watch. Watch
others watch.

Deaf Republic is harrowing and damning, if we dare to listen.

—Alissa Wilkinson

Be Recorder by Carmen Giménez Smith

At first, it might seem like Be Recorder is looking for an argument. Some early poems almost take the form of tiny essays. They lay bare the oppression and dismissal of marginalized people, even in supposed safe spaces.

After being mistaken for another woman with “what you might call a brown name,” the narrator in “Origins” boldly asserts her selfhood through her poetry: “here I am with a name that’s at the front of this object, a name I’ve made singular, that I spent my whole life making.”

But Be Recorder is more than one origin story, and Carmen Giménez Smith shows resistance and resilience are not always rewarded. (One line of startling clarity in “Self as Deep as Coma”: “To end a conversation, tell a story of suicide with a girl in it.”)

Identity and argumentation soon break down. The titular poem is long and fragmented: “Poetry v prose” is the first in a long list of dichotomies that collapse onto each other, and the arbitrary hierarchy of the animal kingdom stands in for the arbitrary hierarchy of nations. Giménez Smith asks if the immigrant is doomed to be seen as an albatross, a mere symbol: “am I the mariner / and whose bird was it”

will I be reincarnated as elephant
as king as flea as barnacle
why am I the locus of your discontent
and not your president
your intimate the landlord
an aesthetic landlord
how do I hang from your neck
with such ease and when
will I be graced with immunity

—Tim Williams

Translated Literature

Baron Wenckheim’s Homecoming by László Krasznahorkai, translated by Ottilie Mulzet — WINNER

With Baron Wenckheim’s Homecoming, László Krasznahorkai closes out his gargantuan four-part literary quartet, begun with his first novel Sátántangó in 1985, and continued in The Melancholy of Resistance (1989), War and War (1999), and finally Baron Wenckheim. (The first two books were turned into cinematic masterpieces by Hungarian filmmaker Béla Tarr.) You thankfully don’t have to have read the earlier novels to get through this one, but when characters have cosmic visions of Satan dancing into eternity, it helps to understand that Krasznahorkai has woven certain motifs throughout his tapestry of vanishing Hungarian pastoral life. In Krasznahorkai’s writing, the banal and the quotidian are constant gateways to mystical revelations and Kafkaesque insights about our absurd postmodern world — or at least, they could be, if his characters, and we as ride-alongs, could only manage to catch them before they vanish into ephemera.

Baron Wenckheim concerns a retiring man who returns home to his tiny Hungarian village, only to be met with scheming and manipulation from many of its desperate and desolate inhabitants. Anyone focusing too much on the plot, though, will miss the trees for the woods, because the real draw of this shamelessly performative experimental fiction is the endless metaphysical abyss of Krasznahorkai’s prose: uninterrupted stream-of-consciousness passages that last for chapters with no breaks of any kind, ruminate simultaneously on the cosmic and the mundane, and fold endlessly onto themselves in a hopeless existential ouroboros, perpetually advancing and retreating before the impossibility of grasping the self and the universe. For example:

… because in reality the fear that existence will cease, and that always in a given case it will cease, is the most elemental force that we know — and if we can’t really enclose this fact in a nice, little box, if we were nonetheless to place all our most significant knowledge in a capsule and shoot it off to Mars — if we could finally make up our minds and leave behind this earth, which in general we don’t deserve (although who knows who’s in charge here?), well — and so here we are again, back with fear … because just think about what that means: fear, if we regard it as a creationary force, a general power center, from which the gods evaporate, and finally God emerges …

This approach predictably doesn’t add up to tidy narrative conclusions. But if such whirling philosophical exercises rejuvenate and invigorate you, then Krasznahorkai’s works are calling your name.

Aja Romano

Death Is Hard Work by Khaled Khalifa, translated by Leri Price

In Khaled Khalifa’s version of Syria, death is the easy part. Living and finding meaning in a country wracked by civil war and mass atrocities proves much more difficult.

Three siblings, Bolbol, Hussein, and Fatima, navigate their broken worlds as they attempt to take the body of their father Abdel Latif for burial back in the hometown he fled many years before. Death Is Hard Work captures their frustration and dissociation with violence as they physically and metaphorically traverse the divides of their country. They are forced to face their own issues with each other, problems that lead them back to the frustrations with the dead man wrapped up in the back seat. War in this novel is messy in a way that goes beyond airstrikes and refugee flows.

At 180 pages divided into three parts, Khalifa oscillates between complexity and simplicity. We’ve all felt like Hussein, struggling to feel important, or like Bolbol, swinging back and forth between thinking of himself as a brave hero and thinking of himself as a cowardly outcast. But the numbness, the blasé nature of tragedy, grant this novel both its undercurrent of dark humor and the fog that lies over its happiness and places the reader deep in the throes of the conflict in Syria. Revolutionaries or rebels, like Abdel Latif, find vigor and life in the hope of breaking the chains of the regime, but those left behind by their seemingly inevitable deaths feel the weight of fear and suffering.

The beautiful translation comes courtesy of Leri Price and holds on to the integrity of Khalifa’s purpose and compelling prose. Normally banal encounters of checkpoints and falling asleep depict the real cost of war. One recurring metaphor imagines the opportunity for love as a bouquet of flowers floating down a river. And the ignored, rotting corpse of the siblings’ father becomes a potent symbol of all that the siblings can’t bear to face, all of the greater tragedies they ignore so that they can focus on the surface-level injustices against them. After they bury their father, the siblings leave each other with little more than a wave goodbye, relishing their return to the hard work of waiting to die.

—Hannah Brown

The Barefoot Woman by Scholastique Mukasonga, translated by Jordan Stump

The Barefoot Woman is an elegiac tribute by Scholastique Mukasonga both to her mother, Stefania — the focal point of the book — and to what life was like for Tutsi residents in Rwanda before the devastating 1994 genocide, when many members of her own family were killed.

Even as it captures the ever-present anxiety in a community racked by violence, The Barefoot Woman also centers heavily on the routine, day-to-day acts that families engage in as they try to build a home together. The book, which is translated from French to English, is as much about commemorating and remembering the sorghum harvest rituals Mukasonga participated in and her mother’s matchmaking prowess as it is about capturing the fear and anguish that her family experiences.

Ultimately, The Barefoot Woman is meant to serve as its own marker, not only of the atrocities that have been committed but also of the people these acts attempted to erase. Mukasonga writes to her mother, “I’m all alone with my feeble words, and on the pages of my notebook, over and over, my sentences weave a shroud for your missing body.”

The book is a testament to her memory and her life.

—Li Zhou

The Memory Police by Yoko Ogawa, translated by Stephen Snyder

Yoko Ogawa focuses on the materiality of life on a small, unnamed island in The Memory Police. That’s because the premise of her dystopian novel is that the objects that enrich life — books, perfume, roses, birds — are systematically disappeared along with the characters’ memories of them, enforced by a fascist regime.

The horror of forgetting is baked deeply into this novel. The narrator is an unnamed novelist whose mother was murdered by this regime because she had the power that few on the island have: to remember. The novelist’s editor, named simply “R,” also has this power, so the narrator hides him in a bunker in her home. The novel they are writing appears in occasional passages as a mise en scene; it’s about a woman who loses her voice, an image that mirrors the novelist’s own fears of how she’ll continue to write while losing words.

The narrator’s only other relationship is with an elderly man she colludes with to hide “R”; he was once the island’s ferry captain before ferries vanished. Whenever another beloved object disappears, the old man responds with empty maxims — “time is a great healer” — or reassurances — “maybe some other flower will grow in its place,” after roses disappear. His character represents the most haunting aspect of Ogawa’s book: the adaptation and quiet resignation that enables an oppressive regime.

—Laura Bult

Young People’s Literature

1919: The Year That Changed America by Martin W. Sandler — WINNER

Yes, this book exists mostly because 1919 was exactly a century ago. But 1919: The Year That Changed America makes a compelling case for both itself and its title.

This is a children’s history book that has the wit to open with a giant flood of molasses. But it doesn’t shy away from the more solemn tales of a revolutionary moment in US history: 1919 thoughtfully covers the women’s suffrage movement (and the racism it did not expel), the violent suppression of labor and African American civil rights movements, and the Red Scare that helped fuel these crackdowns.

I’m very sorry to note, then, that this very website has debunked the myths around Prohibition — the other big event of 1919 — and Martin W. Sandler’s history seems to miss the mark here. Despite careful inclusion of revisionist sources elsewhere in the book, the author does not cite any in this section.

The conventional story the book imparts is captured by the pull quotes (eye-catching with smart use of color, thoughtfully designed like the rest of the book). One from historical aphorism repository H.L. Mencken is so sweeping, it approaches parody: “There is not less drunkenness in the republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more.” But substantial evidence suggests Prohibition really did reduce problem drinking and didn’t increase crime overall, even if organized crime benefited from the legislation.

1919 does invite readers to weigh the costs and rewards of other public health interventions — including gun control. But, say, a debate over a higher alcohol tax? Maybe that will make it in in 3019.

—Tim Williams

Pet by Akwaeke Emezi

Jam thinks she lives in a utopia in Akwaeke Emezi’s bittersweet and unsettling YA novel Pet. The largely unspecified revolution happened before she was born, and she now lives in a world free of police violence, of domestic abuse, of injustices big and small. A trans girl, Jam received care that let her socially transition at 3 and physically transition in her teens. The point is: The monsters are gone and the world is better.

Or is it? A strange, lumbering beast crawls out of one of Jam’s mother’s paintings and makes itself known to Jam, who dubs it Pet. Pet says it is hunting a monster, right there in Jam’s supposed utopia, and the thrust of Pet involves Jam learning that monsters are not confined to history books.

This is a fable, more or less, but it’s a lovely and loving one, with genuine affection for every character who is even briefly introduced. The relationship between Pet and Jam has real heft, even if this is yet another tale of a normal girl and a magical creature. But the really thoughtful idea here is Emezi’s dissection of what justice means, even in a supposed utopia. It’s fleeting, and you have to fight for it — over and over and over again.

—Emily VanDerWerff

Look Both Ways: A Tale Told in Ten Blocks by Jason Reynolds

This is YA author Jason Reynolds’ second National Book Award nomination. Like his previously nominated work, 2016’s Ghost, Look Both Ways channels his vivid voice and his deadpan but tender portraiture of kids growing up in the city, with all its excitement and complexity and cacophony.

In Look Both Ways, Reynolds turns that noise into a polyphonic character study of the city. Billed as a story told in 10 blocks, Look Both Ways channels Armistead Maupin’s Tales From the City, unfolding through the varied viewpoints of a class full of children as they walk home from school every day, navigating their respective city streets. Their lives bypass and occasionally intersect with each other, and as the book unfolds, the reader discovers the physical and human geography of the city.

These kids’ adventures are granular. They are formed moment by moment, block by block: from the ragtag gang who pools their resources to turn 90 cents into an unforgettable memory, to the boy fighting a panic attack when his daily route home is upended, to the kid who expresses a wealth of inarticulable emotions by grabbing a fistful of roses. It’s less a novel than a protracted tone poem, with striking imagery (“He watched his classmates tap-dance with tongues” … “For him, the hallway was a minefield, and there were hundreds of active mines dressed in T-shirts and jeans”) accented with subtle commentary on a host of social issues, from health care and poverty to homophobia and bullying. The prevailing takeaway, though, is a sense of indomitable wonder, girded by Reynolds’ underlying confidence in his city kids. They’re doing just fine.

Aja Romano

Patron Saints of Nothing by Randy Ribay

Randy Ribay has packed a lot into this YA novel. It’s got the requisite messed-up family dynamics, the teen unsure of his path forward, and the love interest, but the real focus is a murder mystery pursued by a total amateur in a faraway country, a place where he doesn’t speak the language and doesn’t always know who to trust. Throw in more than a splash of misdirection and some pretty pointed opinions on the political situation in the Philippines, and you’ve got an out-of-the-ordinary story.

Jay, a Filipino American high school senior with no enthusiasm for college, travels to the country his parents left when he was a baby to solve the mystery behind his cousin Jun’s death. Jun is set up as a saint, an impossibly empathetic paragon who is wildly misunderstood by his authoritarian parent (who is an actual cop, as if we needed the emphasis). Jay rides to the rescue of his younger girl cousins and his whole sad family, but he gets so many things wrong and has to learn real truths instead of relying on his idealized version of events. It’s just like in life.

Some of the “kumbaya” family healing at the end feels forced, but Ribay deals well with the emotions and compromises tragedy forces on people. And the plot never gets lost in its march toward understanding, despite the silent family members, the college plans gone awry, and the crush who may or may not be actually interested. I found myself caring more for the flawed, dead Jun than for the Jay who still has his life ahead of him, but I couldn’t help rooting for Jay to figure himself out.

—Elizabeth Crane

Thirteen Doorways, Wolves Behind Them All by Laura Ruby

Thirteen Doorways is a ghost story, told by the ghost.

Teenage Frankie, getting by in a World War II-era orphanage with her bratty sister Toni, is mostly unaware that she’s being haunted by the long-dead narrator Pearl. But she’s plenty conscious of the other spectral presences in her life: the missing humanity of cruel head nun Sister George; the absence of her very-much-alive father, who abandoned his children; the lack of joy or light or meatball sandwiches at the orphanage. And now, the list includes her brother Vito — her father reappears only to take Vito to Colorado with their new stepmother and step-siblings, leaving Toni and Frankie behind.

Thirteen Doorways, Wolves Behind Them All is a story of female anger and pain about how terrible it was to be a girl in the past, and the past before that, and the past before that. It’s a story about the fear and shame and determination that an unfair life instills in the women those girls become, or never get to become.

There are some familiar beats (orphans bond; teens have crushes; ghosts can’t quite comprehend their own deaths; women with spirit find that spirit violently quashed), but the language is moody and engaging (at one point, phantom Pearl describes herself as “ghostful”), and the truth of the central theme — that danger lurks around every corner — resonates. It’s a story about very real helplessness that manages a glimmer of hope.

—Meredith Haggerty

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2OnrsXR

This debate confirmed there is no Democratic presidential frontrunner

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) all raise their hands during the Democratic presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia on November 20, 2019. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The top tier of the 2020 race is very fluid, and the debate didn’t change that.

The top tier of the 2020 presidential race is incredibly fluid, and Wednesday night’s Democratic debate likely won’t change things much.

The four-person top tier of a massive presidential field has been set for the past month: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But in this tier, there’s no one in a clear position to snag the nomination — and there hasn’t been for a while.

“I haven’t seen a leader statistically in really any of the polls,” University of New Hampshire political science professor and pollster Andy Smith told Vox. “There are a lot of candidates, there’s no identified frontrunner.”

During the debate, each of these candidates answered questions playing to their strengths; Warren landed a punch with an exchange on her two-cent wealth tax, Biden talked about foreign policy and the lack of civility in America, Sanders touched on his signature issue of Medicare-for-all, and Buttigieg took time to pitch himself a moderate alternative to the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Buttigieg, who has seen a recent surge in Iowa and New Hampshire polls, faced more attacks than his counterparts. It was a scene reminiscent of the October debate, which saw Buttigieg himself attacking Warren on her pitch for Medicare-for-all.

But the fundamental dynamic characterizing each debate so far did not change; the stage was incredibly crowded, leading to rushed responses. The top four candidates were drowned out by others; for instance, questions on climate change went to billionaire Tom Steyer and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Wednesday night featured few fireworks between the frontrunners themselves (although Biden and Buttigieg each had to navigate tough questions about their records on race and drug policy).

Wednesday night gave all four frontrunners some wins, and a few losses. Still, not much happened to dramatically reshape the state of the race.

The fluid state of the top tier, explained

There hasn’t been a clear frontrunner in the 2020 race for over a month, as Biden’s early lead has diminished nationally and in the key early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Pollsters and political experts in all four early states told Vox they see the race at the top as constantly shifting. Buttigieg is now leading in Iowa, and Warren and Biden are leading in New Hampshire. Sanders has also strengthened his position after recovering from a heart attack, and he is a formidable candidate in part because he’s popular with young and working class voters, and his supporters are so loyal.

Although Biden is doing the strongest among black voters in South Carolina, political experts in that state said things could also change. And of course, there are over 10 other candidates waiting for their chance to vault to frontrunner status.

“Biden, of course, is the person that everybody’s expecting to do well, and he has a good local ground team who’s doing a lot of stuff,” said Anton Gunn, Obama’s 2008 South Carolina political director, who is not affiliated with any current campaign. “But the support for him is soft, which is not hard yes’s for Biden. [It’s] movable.”

Veteran Iowa pollster Ann Selzer told Vox that the fluidity of the top tier could reflect general election anxiety, and voters’ continued fears that much of the top tier cannot beat President Donald Trump. That’s also leading to the continued entrances of new candidates into an already huge field, like former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

“There’s a skittishness about the chances of these top four candidates,” Selzer told Vox. In a recent Des Moines Register/CNN poll of Iowa she conducted, Selzer asked likely Democratic caucus-goers how confident they were about the chances of each of the four candidates beating Trump. Biden was the only one who got a majority, and even that was a slim majority of 52 percent. Warren and Buttigieg each got 46 percent of voters who thought they could beat Trump, while Sanders got 40 percent.

While Biden is still hanging onto a solid lead in South Carolina, the race is also fluid in New Hampshire and Nevada. Political experts in the latter two states told Vox they’re looking at the in-state infrastructure the campaigns are building, instead of at polls.

Building momentum is an important part of running a presidential campaign. But so is building a campaign infrastructure in all four early states.

New Hampshire voters have a reputation for tuning in to the election later than Iowa caucus-goers, making building an organization to capitalize on Iowa momentum key. UNH pollster Smith noted Warren’s campaign has been building formidable infrastructure in New Hampshire, as well as Sanders and Buttigieg. Strong organizing is also key to win Nevada and South Carolina, the diverse third and fourth early state to vote.

“I’m more interested in who is really staffing up, understands the state — who can capitalize on what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire,” said Nevada Independent editor Jon Ralston, the dean of the state’s political press corps.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2QDJwzK

Everything you need to know about the next Democratic debate

A Democratic debate party at The Abbey on October 15, 2019, in West Hollywood, California. | Mario Tama/Getty Images

December marks the sixth debate of the race.

Only six candidates have qualified so far for the December Democratic debate, the sixth of the 2020 presidential contest, but others could still make the stage in the coming weeks.

Hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico, the debate will take place on December 19 at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs in Los Angeles and will be aired on PBS.

The Democratic National Committee is again raising the standards to qualify for the debate stage. Candidates must achieve at least 4 percent support in at least four polls approved by the Democratic National Convention or 6 percent support in two single-state polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada that were conducted between October 16 and December 12 at 11:59 pm ET. They must also certify that they received donations from at least 200,000 unique donors, including at least 800 per state in 20 states, US territories, or Washington, DC.

So who has qualified for the December debate? The candidates are:

Others have fulfilled one, but not both requirements:

The other 10 candidates in the field have not reached either threshold:

The Democratic field had begun to narrow, but is growing again

Ten candidates made the cut in November. Going into the debate, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg who is riding a recent surge in the polls were perceived as the frontrunners.

The Democratic field has thinned out recently, with former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan exiting the race on November 1 and October 24 respectively. Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam suspended his campaign on November 20. Castro — who dropped his threat to exit the race after he narrowly hit an $800,000 fundraising goal at the end of October — didn’t make the November debate stage, but he insists he is not pulling the plug on his campaign just yet.

Late entries to the race could shake up the contest. Patrick announced his candidacy on November 14 and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, despite downplaying his White House aspirations earlier this year, appears to be on the cusp of announcing a presidential bid as well.

Patrick and Bloomberg, both moderates, could make it more challenging for Buttigieg to position himself as the definitive centrist alternative to Biden. And both would arguably work to siphon off some of Biden’s supporters as well.

Bloomberg, a billionaire, has said he would self-finance his campaign, and Wall Street executives are reportedly ready to support him. Patrick, meanwhile, is welcoming PAC money to help him “do some catch-up.” Whether either can make an impact remains to be seen, but as Steyer, also a late entry to the race, has shown, money can help a candidate play serious catch-up.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2pASTow

Would a female candidate be treated like Pete Buttigieg? Amy Klobuchar sees a double standard.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Pete Buttigieg participate in the fifth Democratic primary debate on November 20, 2019. | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Women are held to a higher bar, Klobuchar said at the Democratic debate Wednesday night.

Ever since candidates began vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president, observers have wondered whether male candidates like Mayor Pete Buttigieg are held to different standards than their female opponents.

On Wednesday, the issue came up on the debate stage.

Moderator Andrea Mitchell quoted previous comments by Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Buttigieg, “Of the women on the stage, do I think we would be standing on that stage if we had the experience he had? No, I don’t.”

“Senator,” Mitchell asked of Klobuchar, “what did you mean by that?”

“Pete is qualified to be up on this stage, and I am honored to be standing next to him,” Klobuchar said. “But what I said is true. Women are held to a higher standard. Otherwise we could play a game called name your favorite woman president, which we can’t do because it has all been men.”

But, Klobuchar said, that doesn’t mean a woman can’t do the job, “If you think a woman can’t beat Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi does it every single day.”

The moment made explicit a thread of criticism that’s run through campaign coverage from the beginning: Male candidates, many say, get more coverage and adulation than female candidates, despite, in some cases, being less qualified. One of the men who got lots of early attention, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, has since dropped out of the race. But Buttigieg is still around, and for some, he’s a reminder that a man can approach frontrunner status in the primary race with only a mayoral post to his name, while female senators struggle to prove they’re “electable.”

On Wednesday night, Klobuchar, at least, wasn’t having it.

Throughout the campaign, male and female candidates have gotten different treatment in the media

Early in the primary race, both O’Rourke and Buttigieg generated breathless media coverage despite limited political resumés. For O’Rourke, it was a Vanity Fair cover story in which he memorably said of the nominating contest, “Man, I’m just born to be in it.” (O’Rourke later suggested his words were taken out of context.) For Buttigieg, it was discussion of his affection for James Joyce’s Ulysses.

At the time, many observers felt that female candidates like Warren and Harris weren’t getting the same media treatment, despite deeper experience and, in some cases, more carefully crafted policy proposals.

“The men are given the most generous interpretation possible about who they are and what they want to do, and the women are held to the most skeptical, cynical standard possible,” Brianna Wu, who ran for Congress in Massachusetts in 2018 and is running again in 2020, told Vox in March.

Things have changed significantly since then. O’Rourke’s campaign struggled to take off — the Vanity Fair profile, as it happens, may have hurt more than it helped. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has risen to frontrunner status, with the media attention to match.

But some inequalities seem to remain.

Buttigieg has caught fire in recent weeks, with favorable polling in Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s helped in part by a narrative of how smart he is, even though other candidates share his academic bona fides. As Amanda Terkel points out at HuffPost, both Buttigieg and Sen. Cory Booker are former Rhodes Scholars, but the mayor’s reception of that scholarship gets far more attention than the senator’s. There are a number of possible reasons for the disparity — as Terkel notes, Booker has a record in Congress for media outlets to focus on, while Buttigieg does not. But the outsized praise Buttigieg gets for his intellect may also have to do with the fact that he’s a white male, while Booker is black.

And the fascination with Buttigieg’s brain comes despite the fact that, as Mitchell noted, he has never held statewide office and won his mayoral election by less than 11,000 votes.

Warren, meanwhile, is the one who more commonly faces questions about whether she’s likable enough to win — or whether she is, perhaps, too angry. A former Harvard Law School professor, she does get some attention for her intellect — but in her case, smarts are often framed as “wonkiness.”

There are other differences, to be sure, between Buttigieg and his female opponents. At the debate on Wednesday night, he cast himself as a political outsider who could beat Trump. And he has tacked closer to the center than either Warren or Sen. Bernie Sanders, positioning himself as an alternative for more moderate voters who don’t want to support former Vice President Joe Biden.

Still, when Klobuchar talked about women being held to a different standard, she was articulating something a lot of people have noticed on the campaign trail for months — and in politics and the workplace more generally for generations.

However, she also made another important point: Beyond Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Donald Trump, there’s no evidence that women in fact are not “electable” as leaders. Research shows that women win congressional races at the same rate as men, and female candidates have notched key victories recently at the national and state levels.

And, as Klobuchar noted, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has frequently demonstrated an ability to outflank Trump, whose particular brand of macho bullying doesn’t seem to work as well on women as it does on men.

“I don’t think you have to be the tallest person on this stage to be president,” Klobuchar said. “I don’t think you have to be the skinniest person. I don’t think you have the loudest voice on this stage.”

“I think what matters is if you’re smart, if you’re competent, and if you get things done,” she continued. And when it comes to winning elections, women have just as good a record of getting things done as men do.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2Xzj3Vt

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started