SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
new york times
Our Covid Reichstag Moment: How Eugenic Interpretations Fuel Authoritarianism
The retroactive calculus of whose lives are worth sacrificing for economic metrics is eerily reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic practices that sorted humans into categories of "fit" and "unfit," determining whose lives were expendable.
Mar 21, 2025
In a recent episode of The New York Times' "The Daily" podcast, host Michael Barbaro interviewed two Princeton political scientists about their new book examining Covid-19 policy failures. Instead of contextualizing the pandemic response within our current democratic crisis, the episode introduced a troubling revisionist narrative: that public health officials who prioritized saving lives were somehow wrong.
Shrouded under the protective guise of political scientist academics presenting "objective" analysis, a politically biased argument was offered as necessary news for the day—an editorial choice made even more striking given the sheer volume of immediate, existential threats to our democracy that warranted urgent coverage instead. This was the necessary deep dive audience needed to know according to The New York Times to better understand the news of the day on the exact same day when U.S. President Donald Trump was expected to announce the closure of the Department of Education and days after Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public rebuke of Trump for threatening to impeach a federal judge over a migration ruling. While our judiciary's independence was under direct assault and educational access for millions of Americans hung in the balance, The "Daily" chose to relitigate pandemic policies through the lens of economic grievance—a choice that speaks volumes about which narratives powerful media institutions consider worthy of amplification.
Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.
This shift in narrative about Covid-19 and the deliberately limiting analysis of this complex issue is not just provocative but dangerous given the coordinated assault on public health happening across the country. As multiple Republican-led states advance legislation to ban masks—tools proven to save lives and reduce symptom severity—and as the Trump administration threatens academic freedom by pressuring Columbia University to comply with a list of harrowing demands including criminalizing masking on campus, major media platforms are inexplicably amplifying critiques of the very experts who risked their careers and safety to protect the public during a deeply uncertain time. These public health officials have already endured death threats and targeted harassment campaigns from right-wing extremists, including Elon Musk who tweeted one early Sunday morning in 2022 "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci." Now, The New York Times lends its institutional credibility to the same dangerous narratives, effectively mainstreaming the delegitimization of scientific expertise—a classic precursor to authoritarian control.
What's most striking about this conversation isn't just its timing, but what it omits. Throughout history, crises have been exploited by authoritarian forces to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power. Covid-19 represents our generation's Reichstag fire moment—a crisis that has been weaponized to erode democratic norms worldwide.
Crisis as Opportunity for Authoritarianism
The historical pattern is clear. After the 1933 Reichstag fire, Hitler immediately blamed communists, enacted emergency powers, suspended civil liberties, and used propaganda to create fear among the German population. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin exploited the 1999 Russian apartment bombings to blame Chechen separatists, launch military campaigns, restrict civil liberties, control media, and crack down on political opposition.
Covid-19 has followed the same authoritarian playbook globally. Governments worldwide enacted emergency powers, increased surveillance, eroded democratic norms, and exploited societal fears. Myanmar's military used the pandemic to justify their 2021 coup. Right-wing extremist groups weaponized misinformation to promote xenophobic rhetoric.
But what's uniquely dangerous about The New York Times' framing is how it subtly reinforces the authoritarian narrative by questioning the very public health experts who refused to calculate human life against economic metrics. When the voices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are played alongside criticism from political scientists—not public health experts—who make clear that they measure success beyond the saving of lives, we're witnessing the normalization of disposability. This calculus of whose lives are worth sacrificing for economic metrics is eerily reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic practices that sorted humans into categories of "fit" and "unfit," determining whose lives were expendable—a ideology that was once condemned by civilized society but now finds subtle—rolling back Medicaid and cutting special education impact disabled people the most—and terribly overt resurrection in our public sphere.
The Real Covid-19 Story Is About Who We Choose to Save
The pandemic revealed which communities our society deemed worthy of protection and which were considered sacrificial for economic priorities. Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.
We cannot separate our understanding of the pandemic from the broader context of growing authoritarianism. The forces threatening democracy today are not single-issue problems but interconnected crises: white supremacy, media fragmentation as social media algorithms feed us visions of worlds comprised of binaries instead of nuances, attacks on gender and racial equity, and ludicrously widening wealth inequality. The rich are getting richer while essential workers—disproportionately the economically marginalized and people of color—were sacrificed during the pandemic. And we have lost our shared reality as social media oligarchs make billions from our mistrust of one another—the same oligarchs who now fund the politicians seeking to rewrite pandemic history, who now have metaphorically repaved the front lawn of the White House as a used car lot. These aren't coincidences but a coherent authoritarian strategy: fragment the population, erase collective memory, pit communities against each other, and dismantle faith in expertise and shared facts. And, as The New York Times demonstrated on March 20, you can do this all under the guise of objective reporting.
Covid-19 was successfully exploited by authoritarian leaders worldwide precisely because they offered simple explanations where reality required nuance. They promised quick returns to normalcy when responsible leadership demanded difficult truths. They divided communities into the essential and non-essential, the worthy and unworthy.
Responsible Media Must Connect the Dots
When major media outlets like The New York Times allow political scientists to critique public health experts without this broader context, they become unwitting accomplices in the authoritarian project. By focusing narrowly on whether lockdowns were "effective" without examining how authoritarians exploited both the crisis and the response, they miss the forest for the trees. They become complicit in emboldening authoritarians.
The question isn't whether public health officials made perfect decisions with imperfect information during an unprecedented global emergency. The question is: Who benefits from undermining trust in the institutions and experts who tried to save as many lives as possible, regardless of economic cost? The answer should trouble us: the same authoritarian forces that have weaponized every crisis throughout history to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power.
As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly.
As we reflect on Covid-19's impact, responsible journalism must place these conversations within our broader democratic crisis. The political scientists at Princeton should know better. The New York Times should know better. And those of us who lived through the pandemic—who witnessed firsthand how extremist politicians like Trump weaponized confusion and suffering to stoke fear, cultivate rage, and deepen divisions—we certainly do know better. We watched as misinformation about masks, vaccines, and public health measures was deliberately spread to fracture communities and undermine institutions. We saw how this manufactured outrage directly fueled the violence at the Capitol and created the fertile ground for today's authoritarian resurgence. Our lived experience of this cynical exploitation demands more from our media than revisionist narratives that conveniently forget this deliberate destabilization.
We must ask ourselves why certain narratives are amplified at specific moments in our national conversation. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly, with full awareness of how limiting narratives can embolden authoritarians and reinforce eugenic hierarchies. The New York Times chose to revisit Covid-19 policies on the same day the Department of Education faced potential elimination—yet they failed to connect how disabled students, already disproportionately harmed during the pandemic, would lose critical protections and supports if this department disappeared. This is not coincidental. It is part of a pattern where eugenic ideology infiltrates mainstream discourse precisely when vulnerable communities need protection most. Media institutions that claim to help us make sense of the world instead reinforce the disposability of certain lives—whether by advocating economic metrics over human survival, by giving platforms to those who see the disabled as acceptable collateral damage, or by simply choosing which crises deserve attention and which can be ignored.
Our responsibility is clear: We must identify these eugenic patterns whenever they appear, name them for what they are, and refuse to accept any worldview that sorts human beings into categories of those worth saving and those not worth saving. When media fails in this moral obligation, we must hold them accountable—not just for the stories they choose to tell, but for the future they help create through those choices. The lessons of history demand nothing less.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the NYT and RFK Jr. Have in Common: Biological Racism
Working people with similar interests and goals have often been divided by bosses and a corporate power structure using language, religion, and ethnicity. Our goal should be to build solidarity and overcome those artificial distinctions, so that we can fight together for our best interests.
Mar 20, 2025
A recent story in the New York Times about Merle Oberon, an actress who was nominated for an Oscar in 1936, promotes a version of biological racism that is more severe than the anti-Semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1935.
The article points out that Oberon, whose mother was Sri Lankan, became a star because “she decided to pass as white, hiding her South Asian identity to make it in an industry that was resistant to anything else.” But she really was “of color,” a term the Times uses without explanation.
We get it. Oberon was the child of a mother who we assume had darker skin color because of her ethnic heritage, and an Anglo father, who was definitionally “white.” So, even though Merle looked “white,” according to the newspaper, the article implies there was some kind “of color” trait in her blood.
The Nazis of the 1930s would not have accepted this “of color” definition, which is so casually used in the article. If Oberon’s mother had been Jewish, for example, Oberon would not have been classified as a Jew under the Nuremberg Laws, which required that three out of four grandparents be Jewish. Oberon would only have had two.
So why does the paper make such a big deal about Oberon “passing?” Why is it important that we consider her to be “of color?”
In the 1930s, the U.S. may have been even more racist than Germany. The U.S. then adhered to a very strict notion of biological racism. In the South, the “one drop rule” held that if you had any Black ancestry at all you were considered Black, no matter your skin color.
American “race scientists,” who were an inspiration to the Nazis, had determined that the hierarchy of biological races included country of origin and religion, as well as skin color. Each race was endowed with traits that could be ranked from best to worst, with Anglo White at the very top, of course. For the Nazis, make that Aryan on top. (See Wall Street’s War on Workers for a closer look at race hierarchies.)
To be sure, the New York Times today rejects that hierarchy. Yet it still runs stories that expect us to believe that there is something that defines “of color,” even if that “color” doesn’t meet the eye test. And they’re not talking about cultural traits or ethnic customs.
If Oberon is “of color” but has no “color,” doesn’t that imply some kind of biological difference that runs deeper than skin color, the one-drop kind that so obsesses biological racists?
This isn’t new for the New York Times. They continually use the word “race,” instead of “ethnic group.” for example, even though the word “race” conjures up a biological cause for difference. But after nearly two centuries of fruitless attempts, “race scientists” old and new have found no biological races.
The New York Times should stop using the word “race,” and instead point out that race is a sociological category, not the biological one which originally was devised to maintain hierarchies of power. How hard is it to say, ‘there is only one race, the human race?”
(By the way, that’s a quote from one of our worker-trainers, who doesn’t find it hard to say at all)
Bobby Kennedy Jr. Carries On the Torch of Biological Racism
Pseudo race science is alive and well in the head of the head of the Health and Human Services Department. In a 2023 New York Post video tape, Kennedy reveals that he, like the race scientists of old, believes that ethnic groups are races, and that races are biologically different.
Just watch how, in July 2023, he slides unselfconsciously between ethnicities, races, and biology:
Covid-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black People. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.
During his confirmation hearings he denied that he said this, and instead, claimed he was simply quoting NIH studies. But that wasn’t true either.
But the senators grilling him missed the big point. They never asked if Kennedy believes that Jews, Chinese, Blacks, and Caucasians are biologically distinct races.
Wait! Did I join the Woke Word Police?
It’s true that I want people to stop using the word “race,” unless they make clear they are not talking about biology in any shape of form. (Falling into that biology rabbit hole, we are more susceptible to believing in phony—indeed, racist—differences in intelligence, athleticism, pain thresholds, violence, lust, and even penis size.)
But my point here is radically different from those focusing on the proper words we should use to show respect to different identities.
Working people with similar interests and goals have often been divided by bosses and a corporate power structure using language, religion, and ethnicity. Our goal should be to build solidarity and overcome those artificial distinctions, so that we can fight together for our best interests. Workers are only hurt by the idea of biological races, which reinforce the fictitious existence of a white race and a white identity. Who wants that?
As my colleague and friend, Tom McQuiston, pointed out to me, labor unions have a better idea – solidarity. By promoting and believing that “an injury to one is an injury to all,” any form of discrimination is a violation of the basic solidarity needed for working people to get a fair shake against corporate power. We fight all forms of discrimination because they are wrong and because they weaken our collective power, no matter who our ancestors are.
In a worker’s movement based on solidarity, Merle Oberon’s Sri Lankan ancestry would be an interesting story but nothing special, unless it had been used to discriminate against her. She, along with her fellow artists, should have been much more worried about how best to band together to get a fair shake from the movie moguls.
It’s almost understandable that biological racism would infest Bobby Jr.’s worm-addled brain. But 90 years after the Nuremberg Laws, shouldn’t the “Paper of Record” know better?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly 400 Rabbis, Jewish Leaders Say 'No' to Trump Push for Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza
"It is vitally important that we in the American Jewish community add our voices to all those refusing to entertain this insidious plan," one rabbi said of Trump's proposal.
Feb 13, 2025
Over 350 rabbis and dozens of Jewish public figures on Thursday placed a full-page advertisement in The New York Times protesting President Donald Trump's proposal to force all Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip and take over the coastal enclave recently decimated by U.S.-armed Israeli forces.
"Trump has called for the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza," the ad states. "Jewish people say NO to ethnic cleansing!"
The ad then lists the hundreds of people who signed on, including V (formerly Eve Ensler), Peter Beinart, Judith Butler, Molly Crabapple, Ben Cohen, Ilana Glazer, Tavi Gevinson, Nan Goldin, Naomi Klein, and Joaquin, Rain, and Summer Phoenix.
"Donald Trump—like Pharaoh in the Bible—seems to believe he is God with authority to rule, own, and dominate our country and the world," said Rabbi Yosef Berman of New Synagogue Project in Washington, D.C., a signatory to the Times ad.
"Jewish teaching is clear: Trump is not God and cannot take away Palestinians inherent dignity or steal their land for a real estate deal," Berman continued. "Trump's desire to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza is morally abhorrent. Jewish leaders reject Trump's attempts to wring profit from displacement and suffering and must act to stop this heinous crime."
Glazer, a comedian and actor, similarly stressed that "we, Jews, and all of us who care about basic human rights, must speak up and stand up to ensure Palestinians remain on their land, so they can rebuild their homes and lives in Gaza after the genocidal destruction they have endured. All of our safety is intertwined."
Today's NY Times. We, too, #SayNoToEthnicCleansing! So proud of our ED, R' @mhughesrob.bsky.social (+ board member Rabbi Andrea London), among the hundreds of Jewish clergy, professionals, lay leaders who signed on. Add your support at www.saynotoethniccleansing.org - click "sign on" in URH corner.
[image or embed]
— Partners for Progressive Israel (@partners4israel.bsky.social) February 13, 2025 at 9:59 AM
Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its 15-month military response to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack. The Israeli assault killed more than 61,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to estimates by local officials. A fragile cease-fire took effect last month.
After Hamas threatened to suspend the release of additional hostages over Israeli violations of the deal—which prompted Israel to threaten more violence, seemingly backed by Trump—the group said Thursday it would free three captives this weekend.
The ad in the Times on Thursday is just part of the growing opposition to Trump's proposal to kick Palestinians out of Gaza and turn the territory into what he claimed could be the "Riviera of the Middle East." Polling published Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that a majority of Americans are against the United States seizing control of Gaza, and nearly 7 in 10 oppose sending U.S. troops for the takeover.
A coalition of over 100 groups led by A New Policy—founded by Biden administration officials who resigned in protest—and the Quaker organization Friends Committee on National Legislation said Monday that they "decry and oppose any effort or initiative, and any calls for, the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, and support the joint statement of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, the Palestinian Authority, and the Arab League that similarly rejected any such steps."
The Guardianreported Thursday that Cody Edgerly, director of the In Our Name Campaign and one of the organizers of the Times ad, pointed to Trump's relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that it came at "a critical time as political redlines that were once thought immovable are rapidly shifting as the Trump-Netanyahu alliance takes hold again."
It has been "heartening to witness such a rapid outpouring of support from across the denominational and political spectrum," added Edgerly. "Our message to Palestinians is that you are not alone, our attention has not wavered, and we are committed to fighting with every breath we have to stop ethnic cleansing in Gaza."
Every day, more and more Jewish leaders break from decades of silence to reject ethnic cleansing. Thank you to these 350 rabbis using your voices in this moment to oppose Trump’s plans in Gaza and #SayNoToEthnicCleansing. #GazaIsNotForSale
[image or embed]
— Jews For Racial & Economic Justice (@jfrejnyc.bsky.social) February 13, 2025 at 8:13 AM
Beinart, editor-at-large of Jewish Currents and author of Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, said in a statement that "as someone who loves the American Jewish community, and lives my life in the American Jewish community, and could not imagine another way of living. It is utterly horrifying to see the degree to which people who enjoy great legitimacy and respect in our community are willing to support something that would be considered one of the greatest crimes of the 21st century."
Another signatory to the ad, Rabbi Toba Spitzer of Congregation Dorshei Tzedek in Newton, Massachusetts, said that "it is vitally important that we in the American Jewish community add our voices to all those refusing to entertain this insidious plan."
Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's "dream of making Germany 'Judenrein,' 'cleansed of Jews,' led to the slaughter of our people," Spitzer added. "We know as well as anyone the violence that these kinds of fantasies can lead to. It is time to make the cease-fire permanent, bring all of the hostages home, and join in efforts to rebuild Gaza for the sake of and with the people who live there."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular