2020年10月16日 星期五

The Daily: The Political Is Personal, Too

We go behind the scenes on our abortion debate coverage. Plus, Barbaro's birthday.

We made it to Friday! After a busy, politics-heavy week, our team is headed into the weekend like Jake Gyllenhaal in “Demolition” (though we’re not commuting much, these days).

This week, we asked why the left is losing on abortion on Monday; got an update on the economy on Tuesday; listened in with Adam Liptak to Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings on Wednesday; and finished the week with a series examining both President Trump’s and former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign promises on Thursday and Friday.

This weekend, we have a Sunday Read coming honoring the work of our late colleague Jim Dwyer. We hope you’ll listen.

We want to make this newsletter better for our readers. Hearing from you helps us do that. Take this quick three-minute survey to make your voice heard.

ADVERTISEMENT

An abortion rights demonstration outside the Supreme Court in January.Olivier Douliery/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Behind the scenes on our abortion coverage

The Daily inbox is a stethoscope, our way of checking listeners’ pulses as they react to the show. Every week, we read your opinions on just about everything: Michael’s voice, our music choices and, most importantly, the issues we cover.

Our inbox has been particularly busy in the last few weeks as we have released two episodes on the battle over abortion rights in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

ADVERTISEMENT

Women around the world have written in describing their experiences terminating pregnancies. Their emails took us to homes and hospitals, Brazilian schoolyards and mango tree forests. They wrote intimately about the costs and calculations they were forced to weigh, and the complications that often followed, in places where access to abortion was criminalized. “I survived this struggle,” one listener said. “I know of some that did not. It was harder to write that I thought it would be.”

These stories underscore that the political is often personal, too — a truism that informed how we planned and produced these episodes.

“That week, it felt like a lifetime. You know, the ultimate 2020 cliché,” the editor M.J. Davis Lin said. “We understood that immediately her seat was going to become the biggest political battle maybe of 2020. But we also knew this political decision would affect millions of people. So we wondered: Who was behind this fight? And what brought them to this moment?”

When the producers Rachel Quester and Neena Pathak asked our reporters whom we should be speaking to, two names kept coming up: Marjorie Dannenfelser, an anti-abortion campaigner and president of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

ADVERTISEMENT

So we decided to give them calls. A few weeks ago, we heard Marjorie describe the strategic electoral and judicial considerations that have gone into conservatives’ decades-long fight against abortion access. And this week, Ilyse examined how reproductive rights campaigners, and the broader progressive movement, had failed to effectively fight back against the erosion of rights established by Roe v. Wade. But beyond both women’s analysis, we again heard the personal stories that animated their politics.

Marjorie described her conversion from anti-Trump campaigner to friend and adviser of the president. “We were struck by her journey, her story, her absolute candor and the compromises she was willing to make along the way,” M.J. said. Ilyse, too, referenced the personal journeys of politicians like Wendy Davis, Jen Jordan and Cora Faith Walker in their campaigns for abortion rights.

Ilyse said she ultimately believed the resolution to the question over abortion access will be settled by shifts in public opinion — like those expressed in the stories that have filled our inbox. “Right now, the abortion rights movement is figuring out how to knit together all the experiences and the people when defeat is literally on the horizon,” she said.

Happy birthday, Michael!

This is how we used to do birthdays, back in the Office Era.Annie Brown

Michael Barbaro turned one year older this week. To celebrate, we dug up the producer Annie Brown’s tribute to him and his hmms (the hmms never age).

And this year, we’ve got a new gem featuring another beloved Barbaro-ism: “What do you mean?” Give it a listen, brought to you by the host-whisperer Michael Simon Johnson and the producer Neena Pathak.

The return of the Modern Love podcast

Brian Rea

The Modern Love podcast is back! If you haven’t listened before, it’s a podcast that explores love in all its forms — through the first-person stories of real people.

But this season, love is going to sound a little different. For one, the podcast is now produced entirely by The Times. “We wanted the show to feel like you’re slipping into a warm bath, a respite from challenging times,” the editor Wendy Dorr said.

And it’s hosted by a new duo: Daniel Jones, who created the Modern Love column in 2004, and Miya Lee, who began working on the column as a submission reader during her freshman year of college.

On the premiere, “Driveway Elegies,” we hear from two women who look to the everyday objects around their homes — stained teacups, the car in the driveway, the razor and shaving cream by the sink — to piece together why their marriages unraveled.

Tune in every Wednesday for a new episode and feels. You can subscribe to Modern Love wherever you get your podcasts.

That’s it for The Daily newsletter. See you next week.

Have thoughts about the show? Tell us what you think at thedaily@nytimes.com.

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Love podcasts? Join The New York Times Podcast Club on Facebook.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for The Daily from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Long Lines are the New Poll Taxes

They're the same thing.
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

Let’s talk about poll taxes.

We tend to think of them as the relic of a more unjust time, an artifact of the Jim Crow South. For good reason. We banned them in 1964 with the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. And it is true that the poll taxes of the past — a fee levied directly on potential voters — are dead and gone. But if you think of the poll tax in the abstract, as any policy meant to exact an economic cost on would-be voters, then it is absolutely clear we still have poll taxes, ones more expensive and potentially costly than anything in the Jim Crow era.

The voters who stood in quarter-mile-long lines to cast a ballot in Ohio this week paid poll taxes. So did the voters who braved three-hour-long waits in Texas and 11-hour lines in Georgia. If you have to devote hours of your life to casting a ballot, you have paid a poll tax. That’s not just because time is irreplaceable, but in a market society like ours, time is literally money. For most workers, time spent in line is money in the form of lost wages and labor hours. For low-income workers in particular, long lines may prove so economically ruinous that they may not vote at all. Given the uneven distribution of long lines, this is the point.

Voters in affluent precincts don’t face long lines. White voters don’t tend to face long lines. Long lines for voting are most common in areas where Black Americans and Hispanics make up a majority of voters, and they are generated by concrete policy decisions: cuts to voting resources in the form of fewer polling stations, poll workers and voting machines.

The culprits, as has often been the case in decisions that limit access to the ballot, are Republican lawmakers and officials who have made the reduction of voting resources a deliberate strategy for shrinking the size of the electorate. In Georgia, for example, the Republican former secretary of state (and current governor) Brian Kemp closed 214 polling stations between 2012 and 2018, often in rural, high-poverty areas with significant Black populations. In Texas, as well, Republicans have fought to reduce options for early voting, contributing to long waits this past week.

When you see long lines for voting, Americans devoting entire days to exercising their right to suffrage, you should remember that these lines are a choice meant to burden our ability to choose our leaders. You should be angry.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

For my Tuesday column, I unpacked the Republican argument for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, noting how it doubles as an argument for expanding the court if Democrats win the White House and the Senate.

The same Constitution that says Republicans can confirm Barrett weeks before the election, that allows them to retroactively impose a new and novel partisan requirement (same-party control of the Senate) on judicial confirmations, also says Congress can add as many seats to the Supreme Court as it wishes. It says Congress can strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to hear certain kinds of cases. It says the judiciary is as subject to “checks and balances” as any other institution in American government and that the people through their elected officials have the right to discipline a court that works against their will.

For my Friday column, I argued for treating the Constitution post-Civil War as a fundamentally different document than the Constitution that was written in 1787.

Whereas the Constitution of 1787 established a white republic in which the right to property meant the right to total domination of other human beings, the Reconstruction Constitution established a biracial democracy that made the federal government what Charles Sumner called the “custodian of freedom” and a caretaker of equal rights. To that end, the framers of this “second founding” — men like Thaddeus Stevens, Lyman Trumbull and John Bingham — understood these new amendments as expansive and revolutionary.

I also did a live chat on Twitter and was part of a round table on the election and progressive politics for the New York Public Library and The New York Review of Books. Oh! And I was part of a discussion on citizenship with the Virginia Quarterly Review and one on voting with Harper’s Magazine.

Now Reading

Marlene L. Daut on the Haitian Revolution in Lapham’s Quarterly.

Hakeem Jefferson on the complex politics of Black Americans in FiveThirtyEight.

Tressie McMillan Cottom on racial inequality in Dissent magazine.

Olga Khazan on the “anti-vaxxer” mentality in The Atlantic.

Soraya Nadia McDonald on Regina King for Glamour magazine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

I was working in my kitchen this week when I noticed a snail crawling on my porch. Decided to use that as an opportunity to take a photograph break and attempt to capture it using a macro lens.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Pumpkin Bread

I made this for my toddler, who has a small slice for breakfast every morning with a little peanut butter. I reduced the sugar in the recipe (which comes from The New York Times Cooking section) from a total of a cup and three quarters to a cup and a third. In the future, I may substitute the sugar entirely with honey, which will require other adjustments. I’ll let you know how it works out.

Ingredients

  • ½ cup vegetable oil, plus more for greasing the pan
  • 2¼ cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 teaspoon baking powder
  • 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
  • ¾ teaspoon kosher salt
  • ½ teaspoon baking soda
  • 1 15-ounce can pumpkin purée
  • 1 cup granulated sugar
  • ¾ cup packed light or dark brown sugar
  • 2 large eggs
  • ¼ cup full-fat sour cream or plain yogurt
  • 1½ teaspoons pure vanilla extract

Directions

Heat the oven to 350 degrees. Oil an 8½- or 9-inch loaf pan; line with parchment, leaving a 2-inch overhang on two sides.

In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder, cinnamon, salt and baking soda. In a large bowl, whisk together the vegetable oil, pumpkin purée, granulated sugar, brown sugar, eggs, sour cream and vanilla.

Fold the dry ingredients into the wet ingredients until fully combined. Transfer the batter to the prepared pan and smooth into an even layer.

Bake until the loaf is puffed and set, and a skewer inserted into the center comes out with moist crumbs attached, 60 to 75 minutes. Transfer the bread, in the pan, to a rack to cool for 20 minutes. Use a paring knife to cut the two exposed sides of bread away from the pan, then use the parchment to transfer the cake to the rack. Let cool completely.

IN THE TIMES

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018