SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Criticizing the McCain campaign for refusing to allow reporters to question Sarah Palin, Time's Jay Carney writes:
Political
operatives love to talk about circumventing the media and other
co-called "elites" -- i.e., independent specialists, observers and
thinkers. The operatives convince themselves they can take their
candidate's message directly to the people -- on their terms, without
all that poking and prodding and skepticism. That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long.
If
only that were true. But if there's one indisputable lesson from the
last eight years, it's that political propaganda works exceedingly well
-- not despite an aggressively adversarial press but precisely because
we don't have one. Carney's idealistic claims about the short life-span
of propaganda in American democracy are empirically false:
"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when
the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent
last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006);
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003);
"The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they
thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll
that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004);
"The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions
of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans
polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006);
"49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to
suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood
that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq].
Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion,
and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008).
Of course Carney is right in theory that anyone running for Vice
President ought to submit to questioning from the media. But the idea
that her doing so will be some great blow against propaganda is wrong
for numerous reasons. Who are these great, aggressive journalists who
are going to question her in a meaningfully adversarial way in order to
expose the falsehoods behind the image that is being created around
her?
When they decide in a couple of weeks that Palin is ready to do so,
she'll go and sit down with Brit Hume or Larry King or Charlie Gibson
or some other pleasant, accommodating person who plays a journalist on
TV and have a nice, amiable, entertaining chat about topics that are
easily anticipated. Having been preceded by all sorts of campaign drama
about her first interview and the excitement that she's not up to the
task, her TV appearance will be widely touted, score big ratings, and
will be nice entertainment for the network that presents it. It will
achieve many things. Undermining propaganda isn't one of them.
This idea that she's some sort of fragile, know-nothing amateur who is
going to quiver and collapse when subjected to the rough and tumble
world of American journalism is painfully ludicrous, given that -- as
the Canonization of the endlessly malleable Tim Russert
demonstrated -- that imagery is a fantasy journalists maintain about
themselves but it hardly exists. The standard journalistic model of
"balance" means that the TV journalist asks a few questions, lets the
interviewee answer, and then moves on without commenting on or pointing
out false claims, i.e., without exposing propaganda (Carney can check
his own magazine to see how that sad, propaganda-boosting process works -- here, here, and here). Few things are easier than submitting to those sorts of televised rituals.
Moreover, Sarah Palin isn't Dan Quayle. She is extremely smart --
much smarter than the average media star who will eventually be
interviewing her -- and she is very politically skilled as well. She
didn't go from obscure small-town city council member to Governor to
Vice Presidential nominee by accident. She'll be more than adequately
prepared for the shallow, 30-second, rote exchanges that pass for
political interviews in our Serious mainstream discourse. Anyone
expecting her to fall on her face or be exposed as some drooling
simpleton is going to be extremely disappointed. That might (or might
not) happen with real questioning, but she's not going to face that.
If anything, this growing drama about Palin's supposed fear of facing
America's super-tough "journalists" who are chomping at the bit to
expose her is going to help her greatly, for exactly the reason Digby
wrote here, after highlighting Chris Matthews' complaints that Palin won't yet submit to interviews:
As if submitting to Chris Matthews' questions ever told voters anything meaningful about the candidates.
They are going to work themselves into a frenzy over this. And the
right will hold Palin off just long enough for the outcry to become
deafening. And then Palin will appear in front of a gargantuan
television audience (again) on something like 60 Minutes --- and do
quite well. They are already working the media hard to make sure they
don't go for the jugular -- and they won't.People need to get over the idea that Palin's some kind of Britney
Spears bimbo. She's a professional politician and from the looks of it,
a pretty good one. She's not going to fall on her face on TV. They will
build the expectations accordingly.
Carney
is exactly wrong. Propaganda thrives -- predominates -- in our
democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't
have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing it. Anyone who
wants to contest that should examine the empirical data above, or more
convincingly, just look at what the Bush administration has easily
gotten away with over the last eight years -- the systematic deceit,
the radicalism, the corruption, the crimes.
The ideological extremism and growing ethical questions
that define Sarah Palin -- and especially the discredited, rejected
core beliefs of John McCain -- means that the McCain campaign should
have much to worry about in this election. Having Sarah Palin face the
mighty, scary American press corps certainly isn't one of them. That's
just a melodramatic distraction, one that will redound to the GOP's
benefit. Palin will "face" our media soon enough, and it will probably
be the easiest thing she'll have to do between now and November.
* * * * *
Beginning this Monday, Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald will
resume on its regular schedule (every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at
2:00 p.m. EST). The work involved in traveling to the conventions,
covering the protests and other related events, and making videos and
the like proved to be far more time-consuming than I anticipated and
made producing the radio show virtually impossible. Now that things are
returning to normal, the Radio Show will as well.
UPDATE:
Several people in comments suggest/hope that Palin's refusal to submit
to press questioning will alienate journalists and make them more
intent on investigating her and subjecting her claims to scrutiny. A
healthy journalistic instinct would indeed produce that reaction. But
is that what we have?
It isn't just that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in modern history (though it has been), but Dick Cheney seemed to take sadistic pleasure in purposely concealing from reporters even the most innocuous information, just to show he could.
He even refused to say how many people worked in his office, or who
worked there, or even where he was and what he was doing on any given
day. Did that propel journalists to investigate him more aggressively
or subject his claims to greater investigative scrutiny? Yes, that is a
rhetorical question. A properly functioning press corps would become
more adversarial and aggressive when treated with such contempt by the
GOP. Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please.
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Criticizing the McCain campaign for refusing to allow reporters to question Sarah Palin, Time's Jay Carney writes:
Political
operatives love to talk about circumventing the media and other
co-called "elites" -- i.e., independent specialists, observers and
thinkers. The operatives convince themselves they can take their
candidate's message directly to the people -- on their terms, without
all that poking and prodding and skepticism. That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long.
If
only that were true. But if there's one indisputable lesson from the
last eight years, it's that political propaganda works exceedingly well
-- not despite an aggressively adversarial press but precisely because
we don't have one. Carney's idealistic claims about the short life-span
of propaganda in American democracy are empirically false:
"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when
the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent
last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006);
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003);
"The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they
thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll
that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004);
"The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions
of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans
polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006);
"49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to
suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood
that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq].
Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion,
and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008).
Of course Carney is right in theory that anyone running for Vice
President ought to submit to questioning from the media. But the idea
that her doing so will be some great blow against propaganda is wrong
for numerous reasons. Who are these great, aggressive journalists who
are going to question her in a meaningfully adversarial way in order to
expose the falsehoods behind the image that is being created around
her?
When they decide in a couple of weeks that Palin is ready to do so,
she'll go and sit down with Brit Hume or Larry King or Charlie Gibson
or some other pleasant, accommodating person who plays a journalist on
TV and have a nice, amiable, entertaining chat about topics that are
easily anticipated. Having been preceded by all sorts of campaign drama
about her first interview and the excitement that she's not up to the
task, her TV appearance will be widely touted, score big ratings, and
will be nice entertainment for the network that presents it. It will
achieve many things. Undermining propaganda isn't one of them.
This idea that she's some sort of fragile, know-nothing amateur who is
going to quiver and collapse when subjected to the rough and tumble
world of American journalism is painfully ludicrous, given that -- as
the Canonization of the endlessly malleable Tim Russert
demonstrated -- that imagery is a fantasy journalists maintain about
themselves but it hardly exists. The standard journalistic model of
"balance" means that the TV journalist asks a few questions, lets the
interviewee answer, and then moves on without commenting on or pointing
out false claims, i.e., without exposing propaganda (Carney can check
his own magazine to see how that sad, propaganda-boosting process works -- here, here, and here). Few things are easier than submitting to those sorts of televised rituals.
Moreover, Sarah Palin isn't Dan Quayle. She is extremely smart --
much smarter than the average media star who will eventually be
interviewing her -- and she is very politically skilled as well. She
didn't go from obscure small-town city council member to Governor to
Vice Presidential nominee by accident. She'll be more than adequately
prepared for the shallow, 30-second, rote exchanges that pass for
political interviews in our Serious mainstream discourse. Anyone
expecting her to fall on her face or be exposed as some drooling
simpleton is going to be extremely disappointed. That might (or might
not) happen with real questioning, but she's not going to face that.
If anything, this growing drama about Palin's supposed fear of facing
America's super-tough "journalists" who are chomping at the bit to
expose her is going to help her greatly, for exactly the reason Digby
wrote here, after highlighting Chris Matthews' complaints that Palin won't yet submit to interviews:
As if submitting to Chris Matthews' questions ever told voters anything meaningful about the candidates.
They are going to work themselves into a frenzy over this. And the
right will hold Palin off just long enough for the outcry to become
deafening. And then Palin will appear in front of a gargantuan
television audience (again) on something like 60 Minutes --- and do
quite well. They are already working the media hard to make sure they
don't go for the jugular -- and they won't.People need to get over the idea that Palin's some kind of Britney
Spears bimbo. She's a professional politician and from the looks of it,
a pretty good one. She's not going to fall on her face on TV. They will
build the expectations accordingly.
Carney
is exactly wrong. Propaganda thrives -- predominates -- in our
democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't
have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing it. Anyone who
wants to contest that should examine the empirical data above, or more
convincingly, just look at what the Bush administration has easily
gotten away with over the last eight years -- the systematic deceit,
the radicalism, the corruption, the crimes.
The ideological extremism and growing ethical questions
that define Sarah Palin -- and especially the discredited, rejected
core beliefs of John McCain -- means that the McCain campaign should
have much to worry about in this election. Having Sarah Palin face the
mighty, scary American press corps certainly isn't one of them. That's
just a melodramatic distraction, one that will redound to the GOP's
benefit. Palin will "face" our media soon enough, and it will probably
be the easiest thing she'll have to do between now and November.
* * * * *
Beginning this Monday, Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald will
resume on its regular schedule (every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at
2:00 p.m. EST). The work involved in traveling to the conventions,
covering the protests and other related events, and making videos and
the like proved to be far more time-consuming than I anticipated and
made producing the radio show virtually impossible. Now that things are
returning to normal, the Radio Show will as well.
UPDATE:
Several people in comments suggest/hope that Palin's refusal to submit
to press questioning will alienate journalists and make them more
intent on investigating her and subjecting her claims to scrutiny. A
healthy journalistic instinct would indeed produce that reaction. But
is that what we have?
It isn't just that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in modern history (though it has been), but Dick Cheney seemed to take sadistic pleasure in purposely concealing from reporters even the most innocuous information, just to show he could.
He even refused to say how many people worked in his office, or who
worked there, or even where he was and what he was doing on any given
day. Did that propel journalists to investigate him more aggressively
or subject his claims to greater investigative scrutiny? Yes, that is a
rhetorical question. A properly functioning press corps would become
more adversarial and aggressive when treated with such contempt by the
GOP. Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please.
Criticizing the McCain campaign for refusing to allow reporters to question Sarah Palin, Time's Jay Carney writes:
Political
operatives love to talk about circumventing the media and other
co-called "elites" -- i.e., independent specialists, observers and
thinkers. The operatives convince themselves they can take their
candidate's message directly to the people -- on their terms, without
all that poking and prodding and skepticism. That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long.
If
only that were true. But if there's one indisputable lesson from the
last eight years, it's that political propaganda works exceedingly well
-- not despite an aggressively adversarial press but precisely because
we don't have one. Carney's idealistic claims about the short life-span
of propaganda in American democracy are empirically false:
"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when
the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent
last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006);
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003);
"The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they
thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll
that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004);
"The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions
of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans
polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006);
"49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to
suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood
that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq].
Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion,
and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008).
Of course Carney is right in theory that anyone running for Vice
President ought to submit to questioning from the media. But the idea
that her doing so will be some great blow against propaganda is wrong
for numerous reasons. Who are these great, aggressive journalists who
are going to question her in a meaningfully adversarial way in order to
expose the falsehoods behind the image that is being created around
her?
When they decide in a couple of weeks that Palin is ready to do so,
she'll go and sit down with Brit Hume or Larry King or Charlie Gibson
or some other pleasant, accommodating person who plays a journalist on
TV and have a nice, amiable, entertaining chat about topics that are
easily anticipated. Having been preceded by all sorts of campaign drama
about her first interview and the excitement that she's not up to the
task, her TV appearance will be widely touted, score big ratings, and
will be nice entertainment for the network that presents it. It will
achieve many things. Undermining propaganda isn't one of them.
This idea that she's some sort of fragile, know-nothing amateur who is
going to quiver and collapse when subjected to the rough and tumble
world of American journalism is painfully ludicrous, given that -- as
the Canonization of the endlessly malleable Tim Russert
demonstrated -- that imagery is a fantasy journalists maintain about
themselves but it hardly exists. The standard journalistic model of
"balance" means that the TV journalist asks a few questions, lets the
interviewee answer, and then moves on without commenting on or pointing
out false claims, i.e., without exposing propaganda (Carney can check
his own magazine to see how that sad, propaganda-boosting process works -- here, here, and here). Few things are easier than submitting to those sorts of televised rituals.
Moreover, Sarah Palin isn't Dan Quayle. She is extremely smart --
much smarter than the average media star who will eventually be
interviewing her -- and she is very politically skilled as well. She
didn't go from obscure small-town city council member to Governor to
Vice Presidential nominee by accident. She'll be more than adequately
prepared for the shallow, 30-second, rote exchanges that pass for
political interviews in our Serious mainstream discourse. Anyone
expecting her to fall on her face or be exposed as some drooling
simpleton is going to be extremely disappointed. That might (or might
not) happen with real questioning, but she's not going to face that.
If anything, this growing drama about Palin's supposed fear of facing
America's super-tough "journalists" who are chomping at the bit to
expose her is going to help her greatly, for exactly the reason Digby
wrote here, after highlighting Chris Matthews' complaints that Palin won't yet submit to interviews:
As if submitting to Chris Matthews' questions ever told voters anything meaningful about the candidates.
They are going to work themselves into a frenzy over this. And the
right will hold Palin off just long enough for the outcry to become
deafening. And then Palin will appear in front of a gargantuan
television audience (again) on something like 60 Minutes --- and do
quite well. They are already working the media hard to make sure they
don't go for the jugular -- and they won't.People need to get over the idea that Palin's some kind of Britney
Spears bimbo. She's a professional politician and from the looks of it,
a pretty good one. She's not going to fall on her face on TV. They will
build the expectations accordingly.
Carney
is exactly wrong. Propaganda thrives -- predominates -- in our
democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't
have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing it. Anyone who
wants to contest that should examine the empirical data above, or more
convincingly, just look at what the Bush administration has easily
gotten away with over the last eight years -- the systematic deceit,
the radicalism, the corruption, the crimes.
The ideological extremism and growing ethical questions
that define Sarah Palin -- and especially the discredited, rejected
core beliefs of John McCain -- means that the McCain campaign should
have much to worry about in this election. Having Sarah Palin face the
mighty, scary American press corps certainly isn't one of them. That's
just a melodramatic distraction, one that will redound to the GOP's
benefit. Palin will "face" our media soon enough, and it will probably
be the easiest thing she'll have to do between now and November.
* * * * *
Beginning this Monday, Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald will
resume on its regular schedule (every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at
2:00 p.m. EST). The work involved in traveling to the conventions,
covering the protests and other related events, and making videos and
the like proved to be far more time-consuming than I anticipated and
made producing the radio show virtually impossible. Now that things are
returning to normal, the Radio Show will as well.
UPDATE:
Several people in comments suggest/hope that Palin's refusal to submit
to press questioning will alienate journalists and make them more
intent on investigating her and subjecting her claims to scrutiny. A
healthy journalistic instinct would indeed produce that reaction. But
is that what we have?
It isn't just that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in modern history (though it has been), but Dick Cheney seemed to take sadistic pleasure in purposely concealing from reporters even the most innocuous information, just to show he could.
He even refused to say how many people worked in his office, or who
worked there, or even where he was and what he was doing on any given
day. Did that propel journalists to investigate him more aggressively
or subject his claims to greater investigative scrutiny? Yes, that is a
rhetorical question. A properly functioning press corps would become
more adversarial and aggressive when treated with such contempt by the
GOP. Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please.
The study was published as President Donald Trump was blasted for an executive order that one critic said shows he wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station."
For thousands of years, the land areas of the Arctic have served as a "carbon sink," storing potential carbon emissions in the permafrost. But according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change Tuesday, more than 34% of the Arctic is now a source of carbon to the atmosphere, as permafrost melts and the Arctic becomes greener.
"When emissions from fire were added, the percentage grew to 40%," according to the Woodwell Climate Research Center, which led the international team that conducted the research.
The study, which was first reported on by The Guardian, was released the day after President Donald Trump issued multiple presidential actions influencing the United States' ability to confront the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by fossil fuel emissions, including one directly impacting resource extraction in Alaska, a section of which is within the Arctic Circle.
Sue Natali, one of the researchers who worked on the study published in Nature Climate Change, told NPR in December (in reference to similar research) that the Arctic's warming "is not an issue of what party you support."
"This is something that impacts everyone," she said.
As the permafrost—ground that remains frozen for two or more years—holds less carbon, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere that could "considerably exacerbate climate change," according to the study.
"There is a load of carbon in the Arctic soils. It's close to half of the Earth's soil carbon pool. That's much more than there is in the atmosphere. There's a huge potential reservoir that should ideally stay in the ground," said Anna Virkkala, the lead author of the study, in an interview with The Guardian.
The dire warning was released on the heels of Trump's executive order titled "Unleashing the Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential" that calls for expedited "permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska," as well as for the prioritization of "development of Alaska's liquefied natural gas (LNG) potential, including the sale and transportation of Alaskan LNG to other regions of the United States and allied nations within the Pacific region."
The order also rolls back a number of Biden-era restrictions on drilling and extraction in Alaska, which included protecting areas within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas leasing.
"Alaska is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, a trend that is wreaking havoc on communities, ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and ways of life that depend on healthy lands and waters," said Carole Holley, managing attorney for the Alaska Office of the environmental group Earthjustice, in a statement Monday.
"Earthjustice and its clients will not stand idly by while Trump once again forces a harmful industry-driven agenda on our state for political gain and the benefit of a wealthy few," she added.
Trump wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station," said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, in a statement Monday. "Make no mistake, Trump's rushed and sloppy actions today are an existential threat to these lands and waters, and the communities and wildlife that depend on them."
The U.N. ambassador nominee also shrugged off the Nazi salutes made by Elon Musk on Inauguration Day.
As U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik faced questioning by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday regarding her nomination for a top diplomatic position, the rights group Jewish Voice for Peace Action called on lawmakers to consider her "record of antisemitic, anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant, and anti-democracy rhetoric and policy" and block her confirmation.
Stefanik's (R-N.Y.) record was reinforced at the hearing as she was asked about her views on Palestine, expressions of antisemitism in the United States, and far-right Israeli leaders' political agenda, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) recalling a meeting he had with the congresswoman after President Donald Trump nominated her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
At the meeting, Van Hollen said, Stefanik had expressed support for the idea that Israel has a Biblical right to control the entire West Bank—a position that is held by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and former National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, but runs counter to the two-state solution that the U.S. government has long supported.
"Is that your view today?" asked Van Hollen, to which Stefanik replied, "Yes."
Van Hollen noted that Stefanik's viewpoint also flies in the face of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions and international consensus about the Middle East conflict.
"If the president is going to succeed at bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, we're going to have to look at the U.N. Security Council resolutions," said the senator. "And it's going to be very difficult to achieve that if you continue to hold the view that you just expressed, which is a view that was not held by the founders of the state of Israel."
Stefanik also refused to answer a direct question from Van Hollen regarding whether Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, saying only that she supports "human rights for all" and pivoting to a call for Israeli hostages to be released by Hamas.
Jenin Younes, litigation counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said Stefanik expressed "religious fanaticism, pure and simple" at the confirmation hearing—which was held as Israeli settlers and soldiers ramped up attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank.
"That [Stefanik] will now play a major role with respect to our foreign policy in the region is terrifying," said Younes.
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action noted that in addition to supporting "the Israeli government's brutal genocide of Palestinians," Stefanik has also "amplified the antisemitic Great Replacement theory"—which claims the influence and power of white Christian Americans is being deliberately diminished by Jewish Americans and immigration policy.
Despite her support for the debunked conspiracy theory, Stefanik made headlines last year for her accusations against college students, faculty, and administrators over the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that exploded across campuses as Americans spoke out against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza. The congresswoman said the protests were expressions of antisemitism and pushed for the resignation of university leaders who declined to discipline students who spoke out against Israel.
The hearings where Stefanik lambasted college leaders "were part of a broader campaign to silence anti-war activism and dissent on college campuses while forwarding the MAGA culture war campaign against [diversity, equity, and inclusion], critical race theory, and LGBTQ+ rights," said JVP Action.
An exchange between Stefanik and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday also raised questions over Stefanik's views on antisemitism. Murphy asked the nominee about the Nazi salute twice displayed by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk—whom the president has named to lead his proposed Department of Government Efficiency—at an event Monday night.
" Elon Musk did not do those salutes," Stefanik asserted.
Murphy countered by reading several comments from right-wing commentators who applauded Musk's "Heil Hitler" salute.
"Over and over again last night, white supremacist groups and neo-Nazi groups in this country rallied around that visual," said Murphy.
JVP Action said Stefanik has "deeply embraced Trump's anti-democratic agenda."
"Her nomination must be blocked," said the group.
"As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken," said one campaigner.
As President Donald Trump triumphantly returned to the White House thanks in part to a tsunami of campaign cash from oligarchs and corporate interests, democracy defenders on Tuesday marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that unleashed such spending by urging action to overturn the decision.
In a nation where corporations and moneyed interests already wielded disproportionate power and influence over elections, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reversed campaign finance restrictions dating back to the era of Gilded Age robber barons. The ruling affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called "dark money."
In his Citizens United dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that "in a functioning democracy the public must have faith that its representatives owe their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the deepest pockets," and warned that the ruling "will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
"Over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
Since then, nearly $20 billion has been spent on U.S. presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
Ultrawealthy megadonors played a critical role in Trump's 2024 victory. Some of them have been rewarded with Cabinet nominations and key appointments in "an administration dominated by billionaires and corporate interests," as Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass described it.
"Fifteen years ago today, the Supreme Court gave billionaires and special interests unprecedented power to rig our democracy with its disastrous Citizens United decision. Yesterday, Donald Trump was sworn in, ushering in the wealthiest administration in American history," Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, said on social media Tuesday. "Citizens United paved the way for Trump II."
Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, said in a statement that "over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
"Citizens United legalized economic inequality as a political tool for the wealthy to exploit," Rojas added. "A decade-and-a-half later, working-class people cannot afford to run for office and everyday voters' voices are drowned out by billionaire-funded super PACs. As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken."
Justice Democrats noted: "Yesterday, Donald Trump was inaugurated as president in what was maybe one of the most openly corporate-sponsored inaugurations in American history. In just one row seated in front of Trump's Cabinet members, four men had the combined wealth of just under $1 trillion."
"Billionaires and corporations are paying their way to gain influence in the Trump administration and they can expect a massive return on their investment, at the expense of everyday people," the group added.
It's no surprise, say critics, that corporate profits and plutocrat wealth have soared to new heights during the Citizens United era.
"Citizens United allowed corporations to buy candidates and elections. Citizens United legalized political bribery. Citizens United let wealth dominate our elections," the consumer watchdog Public Citizen said Tuesday. "Overturn Citizens United."
Positing that "Citizens United turned our democracy into an auction," Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media Tuesday that "our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations and billionaire elites. We must #EndCitizensUnited and put the American people back in charge."
Democratic lawmakers have introduced numerous bills, including proposed constitutional amendments, to reverse Citizens United. While Congress has not been able or willing to address the issue, 22 states and the District of Columbia, as well as more than 800 local governments across the country, have passed measures calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, according to Public Citizen.
"This is a moment to
usher in a new era in the Democratic Party that rejects the growing oligarchy in this country by rejecting the unprecedented level of billionaire and corporate spending that has a stranglehold over both parties," Justice Democrats said on Tuesday. "Now is the moment to tirelessly center working people and expose the big money corruption that Citizens United has brought onto both parties. By rejecting their influence, working-class people may finally have the promise of a party that actually serves them."