“One Nation, Indivisible, Under God . . .” But Whose God?

William E. Alberts

Many people take for granted what one means when he or she refers to “God.” It is assumed that “God” has a common meaning . That assumption is implied in the countless generalized references to “God” made by politicians, journalists, other media persons, faith leaders, and citizens. Herein lays a shared — and dangerous — misconception. Generally seen as good, “God” can be used to serve self-centered, predatory, evil purposes.

It is also commonly believed that The Bible reveals the nature of God. That belief is proven problematic merely by the fact that there are over 200 Christian denominations in the United States alone, and many of them base their identity on different and, in certain instances, differing passages of Scripture. (For a list of Christian denominations in the U.S., see “Christian Denominations,” www. mesacc.edu)

For example, in Matthew 16: 18-20, Jesus is recorded as saying to his disciple Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church . . . I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thus the Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian church, founded by Christ himself – which its adherents believe makes it the “one true church.” It’s guiding theology: people are inherently sinful and need the rites of the Catholic Church, dispensed by its priests, to insure their salvation of “being bound in heaven” and avoid being “loosened” into eternal damnation.

In the 16^th century, Catholic priest Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation, challenging the authority of the Catholic Church over the claim that it alone possessed the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Luther still declared that people were inherently sinful, but they could go directly to the Scriptures to obtain their salvation, rather than depend on a priest as a mediator. They were saved through faith in Christ, who died on the cross for their sins. As Paul the Apostle declared in Ephesians 2: 8: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” For Luther, faith was about “the priesthood of all believers.” Thus for Lutherans, the authority to determine who is saved and who is damned shifted from the Church to belief in the Scriptures, from the institution to the individual.

The United Methodist Church, second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., was founded by Anglican priest John Wesley in 18^th century England. Wesley stressed expressing a Catholic spirit toward other Christian groups, using as his inspiration II Kings 10: 15: “Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to yours? . . . If you are, give me your hand.” Thus today The United Methodist Church’s motto is “Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors.” (See “Love, Unity and the Catholic Spirit: What Does Wesley Say?,” By Greg Stover, wesleyancovenant.org, Feb. 8, 2019) But The Church is in the process of splitting up. The issue: homosexuality. The weapon of choice: The Bible. The so-called “Traditionalist” members are using selective anti-LGBTQ passages of Scripture to close the Church’s doors on the aspirations of LGBTQ persons – and their growing number of supporters — to gain full acceptance at the Church’s altar. Thus “Men who practice homosexuality” will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6: 9-10) takes precedent over Jesus’ great commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12: 31) “Faithfulness to [certain] Scripture” is stressed rather than human affinity.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the U. S., and second Christian Church in size only to the Roman Catholic Church. The SBC believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures (“Gospel Above All”), is predominantly white, evangelical, pro-life and anti-gay. And “Southern Baptists tend to favor the Republican Party.” (“7 facts about Southern Baptists.” By Dalia Fahmy, Pew Research Center, July 7, 2019). In fact, a large percentage of President Trump’s 2016 Evangelical Advisory Board were Southern Baptists. Thus the 2020 Republican Party platform was reported to “align with several SBC resolutions and agree partially with others” and “continued to stand on its 2016 platform – which does address . . . traditional SBC priorities, including abortion, religious liberty and human sexuality.” “God” is prominent here. “The 66-page 2016 platform references God 15 times, marriage 19, abortion 35 and contains no clear disagreements with SBC stances.”(“How Republicans’ stances compare with SBC resolutions,” By David Roach, Baptist Press, Aug. 26, 2020)

Evidently “God” is a Republican. Many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals believe that “God” was behind President Trump’s election in 2016. Rev. Franklin Graham, prominent Southern Baptist leader, explained why Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016: “Hundreds of thousands of Christians from across the United States having been praying . . . for this election and the future of America. . . . Then Christians went to the polls, and God showed up. . . . I believe that God’s hand intervened Tuesday night to stop the godless, atheistic progressive agenda from taking control of our country.” (“Franklin Graham: The media didn’t understand the ‘God-factor’ in Trump’s win,” By Lindsey Bever, The Washington Post, Nov.10, 2016)

Rev. Graham added that President Trump and Vice President Pence “need God’s help and direction. It is my prayer that we will truly be ‘one nation under God.’” (Ibid)

Whose God? The biblically bound, white supremacist, pro-life God who cages immigrant children, is anti-Muslim, gives believers the “religious freedom” to discriminate against LGBTQ persons (no wedding cakes here)? The Jesus only saves “Gospel Above All” God? Instead of “One nation under God,” how about Christians pledging allegiance to One God under whom everyone is favored equally?

Pastor Robert Jeffress, another leading Southern Baptist minister, who serves on President Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board, called Trump a Christian “warrior,” and “that pro-life Christians had a champion in Trump and that the Democrats would ‘undo everything this president has done . . . in the pro-life area. . . . Apparently.’ ” Jeffress continued, “ ‘the god they worship is the pagan God of the Old Testament Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice.’ ” (“Pastor Robert Jeffress Says Trump Is Christian ‘Warrior’ and Democrats Worship Pagan God Moloch ‘Who Allowed for Child Sacrifice,’ “ By Brendan Cole, Newsweek, Oct. 2, 2019)

Many white evangelical Christians believe that President Trump is “God’s Chosen one.” Critics of the belief “that Trump was heaven-sent” are dismissed by Rev. Franklin Graham. In a reported “conversation . . . Graham suggested that criticism of Trump was coming from “a demonic power.’ “ (“Comparing Trump to Jesus, and why some evangelicals believe Trump is God’s chosen one,” By Eugene Scott, The Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2019)

In discussing the China trade war with reporters, President Trump “looked toward the heavens . . . proclaiming ‘I’m the chosen one.” When pressed about such a Messianic statement, he later said that he was kidding. Still, as reported, he has “tweeted quotes from conservatives comparing him to the ‘second coming of God.’ “ (Ibid) Whether kidding or not, Trump got as much mileage as possible out of being deified; and deification would fit his narcissism, which like the heavens, is boundless. He feeds evangelicals’ need of a Messiah. One example of that seduction is authorities violently driving peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, with Trump then walking to the front of St. John’s Church, near the White House, and holding up a Bible for a photo op.

While President Trump may not be the Messiah, he claims an intimate relationship with “God.” In a rally in Cleveland, he said that Democratic presidential nominee (now president-elect), “Joe Biden – a practicing Catholic – is ‘against God.’” Trump continued: “ ‘Take away your guns. Take away your Second Amendment. No religion. No anything . . . Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He’s against God. He’s against guns. He’s against energy.’ ” (“Trump falsely says Biden, a practicing Catholic, is ‘against God,’” By Caitlin Conan, CBS News, Aug. 7, 2020)

“One nation, indivisible, under God with liberty and justice for all.” Whose God? The white American nationalist Christian “God” sitting on top of an historic, systemic white-favored hierarchy of access to “liberty and justice” – and health as the coronavirus pandemic disproportionally ravages economically deprived people of color. A Christian “God” who plays favorites with “His” children. A “God” whose truth is limited by sectarian bias supported by select biblical revelations, whose love is conditional, and who is about justification by faith alone and not “justice for all.”

The Golden Rule, which is shared by Christianity and the major religions, provides a universally held key to truth, love and justice. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” reveres and expresses truth, as truth involves experiencing –not interpreting — each other’s reality. Justice involves making sure that everyone shares the same democratic access to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which is possible where truth abounds. And truth and justice are the wings of love. Many Christians share these universal values, but Christianity does not have a monopoly on them. Truth, justice and love are discovered and practiced in shared human experience everywhere.

China is razing the Uyghurs’ diverse Islamic traditions

Zeenat Khan

With 16,000 mosques damaged in recent years, the autonomous region of Xinjiang now has the lowest number of Muslim houses of worship since the 1960s Cultural Revolution (AFP)

To persecute the Uyghur Muslims, the demolition of mosques across China in recent times has drawn an international outcry. It started with the detention of the Muslims in internment camps in Xinjiang province. More than 1.5 million Xinjiang Uyghurs, Kazaks and members of other Central Asian ethnic minority groups have been held in camps. This is part of a huge propaganda campaign of the Communist Party to turn all ethnic groups’ loyal followers of the party. Since 2017 China has accelerated its detention program. Afterwards China started damaging and altering the mosques, holy shrines and the places of yearly pilgrimage. The government has closed some of the state protected routes to reach the holy sites. With the demolition of Muslims’ place of worship, China is trying to remake its Muslim culture. The systematic removal of these structures would make it harder for the young Uyghurs growing up in China to remember or to relate to their distinctive Muslim heritage. By destroying the mosques China is wiping out the cultural and religious tradition of the Muslims. New research shows “Chinese authorities have razed or damaged two-thirds of the mosques in China’s remote northwestern region of Xinjiang, further illuminating the scope of a forced cultural-assimilation campaign targeting millions of Uighur Muslims.”

The government is of course doing it in the name of containing terrorism. To root out terrorism the communist government is hell bent on in creating a society that will only be loyal to Beijing. It also says to bring much needed development in the region its priority is to eliminate any kind of threat. Some parts of Xinxiang got a billion dollar makeover to remake the existence of an entire ethnic group. As a result a lot of the ethnic Muslim leaders are disappearing from the area. Uyghur language books are vanishing from the bookshelves, reported a team of the Wall Street Journal reporters during their recent visit in the area. A video supporting their claim shows Uyghur’s new makeover by comparing footages from only a year before.

“Nothing could say more clearly to the Uyghurs that the Chinese state wants to uproot their culture and break their connection to the land than the desecration of their ancestors’ graves, the sacred shrines that are the landmarks of Uyghur history,” Professor Rian Thum of the University of Nottingham told the Guardian.

A recent published report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said, “Satellite images showed that roughly 8,500 mosques, close to a third of the region’s total have been demolished since 2017.” Another 7,500 sustained damage.

“Out of 91 sites analyzed, 31 mosques and two major shrines, including the Imam Asim complex and another site, suffered significant structural damage between 2016 and 2018”, reported the Guardian. “Of those, 15 mosques and both shrines appear to have been completely or almost completely razed. The rest of the damaged mosques had gatehouses, domes, and minarets removed. A further nine locations identified by former Xinjiang residents as mosques, but where buildings did not have obvious indicators of being a mosque such as minarets or domes, also appeared to have been destroyed.”

Experts say the destroying of religious sites marks a return to extreme practices not seen since the Cultural Revolution when mosques and shrines were burned, or in the 1950s when major shrines were turned into museums as a way to desacralize them.

How it all got started

Since the establishment of People’s Republic of China in1949, Communist China has discouraged religious practices. They had inherited the anti-religious stance taken by Communists in showing contempt for all religious beliefs. Religion is considered an enemy of socialism in China and falls within the regulated framework of state approved “standards.” Religious practices were thus particularly difficult to observe during Mao’s Cultural Revolution (from 1966-1977) when many practitioners of religion were persecuted by the communist party “Red Guards.” In the recent years, active suppression is not as grim as it used to be, and the influence of religion now has been considerably abated from the standpoint of the Beijing government. China once eased up a little on giving people religious freedom, but with one party rule, it still has serious aversion to any kind of religious activities.

From the beginning of Marxism, there has been no love lost between this communist ideology and religion. Marx declared religion as the “opiate of the masses.” The oppressed, the poor, the proletariat in general would resort to or find solace in religion simply because it provided an escape from the harsh economic realities of everyday life. Although Marx was not totally unsympathetic towards religion, 20th century communists interpreted it in harsh “materialist” terms. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky in Russia, and Mao Zedong in China followed the notion first proposed by Marx of seeing religion as a tool used by the capitalist classes to deceive the masses oppressed under a pitiless economic system. When the Communists won the civil war in 1949, the symbols of “Old China” were pushed aside in favour of the Maoist ideology. Part of this old China consisted of religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism practiced by the majority of the ethnic Han Chinese, as well as Christianity and Islam, the latter largely practiced by a few million Uyghurs in Xinxiang in Western China. The state looked at the economic conditions of the majority, and decided that an ideological struggle, based on Maoist ideas best provided the means for uplifting the condition of the masses. Set aside temporarily, at least for the first few decades, was the tension between the ethnic Han Chinese, and Muslim Uyghurs in Xinxiang. The focus was, in Marxist parlance, on class struggle instead.

With major economic changes and social services upgrades, China now is akin to 1890s America – a cross between capitalism and socialism. In spite of repeat assurances by Beijing that ethnic Uyghurs living in China’s mostly Muslim Xinjiang region enjoy full religious freedom, government workers routinely block their right to fast during Islam’s holy month of Ramadan, sources in the region say.

Since the 1990s, “the Chinese government grew increasingly nervous about the expansion of mosques and revival of shrines in Xinjiang. Officials saw the gathering of pilgrims as kindling for uncontrolled religious devotion and extremism, and a spate of antigovernment attacks by discontented Uighurs set the authorities on edge.” – The NY Times

In 2016, right before Ramadan started, I recall reading two back to back reports about religious ban in China. The top Chinese officials led by president Xi Jinping have warned people, especially those Muslims living in Xinjiang province, to excuse themselves from any kind of religious practices. Four days before the start of Ramadan, China put a ban on the Muslims to refrain from fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. The strict warning essentially had reiterated that all Chinese must adhere to China’s state policy of “Marxist Atheism.” The government had ordered no special provisions to be made during Ramadan. It had instructed all businesses to remain open without any exception. Anyone who had failed to comply was dealt with in accordance with the communist code of conduct.

On June 02, 2016 China also issued a white paper glorifying “unprecedented” levels of religious freedom in Xinjiang, adding that “no citizen suffers discrimination or unfair treatment for believing in, or not believing in, any religion,” according to official media. However, several local government departments and middle or high schools in the Uyghur region had simultaneously posted warnings online ordering restrictions on the Muslim duty to fast during Ramadan; local sources told RFA’s Uyghur Service. “We have forbidden [ruling Chinese Communist] Party members, cadres, civil servants, and village officials, in fact anyone drawing a salary from the state, from praying or fasting during Ramadan.” Xi Jinping’s remarks were made at the Second National Work Conference on Religion. It has been reported that all Chinese state media broadcast his message nonstop.

As a practicing Muslim, I cannot imagine anyone telling me that I cannot pray to Allah or fast during Ramadan. For Muslims, Ramadan emanates from the spiritual rejuvenation inspired by the selfless act of fasting. We also fast because it is obligatory for every mature, sane and healthy Muslim as it is a means of helping ourselves to fulfill the directives of Islam. Here in the Washington DC area Ramadan always falls in the summer where the sun sets at 8:40 pm and we endure this practice of fasting without complaining about the long hours.

Since 2016, I have been reading how millions of Syrians at refugee-camps throughout Europe are breaking fast with simple meals that are made from their monthly food voucher or donated food packages. Such stories only increase one’s conviction. I read a story about one refugee family who had escaped to Sweden. This particular city is close to the North Pole of the earth and in the summer, the sun can often be seen past midnight. Therefore, those refugee Muslims had to fast for many more extra hours than we did. While talking to a reporter, the father in the family didn’t complain about that or the bad food. Jokingly he had added that he has nothing against his wife’s cooking, but during Ramadan, he misses his mother’s Kawaj (Syrian version of kufta) that she used to make for iftar when he was a boy. The Chinese government wouldn’t be moved by such stories and take into account why Muslims need to live their lives according to the tenets of Islam.

After decades of relative openness that allowed more moderate forms of Islam to flourish, China’s latest endeavor of destroying mosques is a warning aimed at the Uyghurs, who in recent times have become very aggressive in their protests against the state. Xinjiang borders Pakistan where the hardline Islamic teachings flow more easily; the Chinese government fears that the entire province will be radicalized if it doesn’t stop the influence of Islamic messages. Xi Jinping’s message is often directed to the government of Pakistan. Another very important message by President Xi made it very clear about China’s State policy of intolerance towards Pan-Islamic tendency to the people. He asked all Chinese citizens “not to confuse themselves with non-CCP (Chinese Communist Party, my note) approved tendencies” and to “never find their values and beliefs in this religion or that religion.” He has been asking the Uyghurs to resist overseas intrusions through religious means and to safeguard against ideological infringement by Islamic extremists across the border.

The Chinese leaders are convinced and terrified that Islam in some parts of China is making the nation vulnerable to extremist infiltration, and cautioned its people to stay vigilant against everything Islamic, including halal products. They, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that halal products will not make into the Chinese markets.

Muslim students in schools are forbidden to believe in religion and are barred from religious observance, such as praying and fasting according to a letter posted online by administrators of High School 46 in the regional capital, Urumqi from 2016 onwards. The letter is addressed to the parents of students at the school. Another letter was also sent to the parents where it said anyone under 18-year should not enter the mosque to pray. “Parents should follow the Party’s rules of education and bar their children from illegal religious activities such as praying, fasting, going to mosques, wearing religious dress, studying religion, and so on,” the letter read.

A student studying in western Xinjiang’s Kashgar University had claimed that students are forced to eat during Ramadan. At his school, the administrators now “regularly check each classroom and force Uyghur students to drink water or eat something in front of them.” Students’ bags are routinely checked during the day to see if they contain food meant to be eaten when the day’s fast ends at sundown. If any is found, the students are made to eat them right away. “The university administration always warns us that if students fast or pray, they will be expelled from the university or will not receive a diploma or certificate when they graduate,” said the student.

The local families who are under suspicion that they may be fasting are invited to the village office to “drink tea” to see if they are really fasting or not by the “stability worker.” They also use other means to get information on villagers’ religious activities through their “secret eyes and ears” or through their “neighborhood-watch” program.

The owner of a traditional medicine store in Hotan named Obulqasim said, “I have heard from friends working in government departments that water bottles are being distributed to civil servants and other cadres, and that they must drink these in front of others.” With an estimated 4 million Muslims living in China, these kinds of absurdities happen every year during Ramadan.

To promote the position of the communist government, many newspapers regularly run articles on why religion should not be allowed to be practiced in the country, and expressed support for the newly refreshed policies that were already in place.

Since China has declared the year 2016 as the “Year of Ethnic Unity and Progress,” it is beyond me why it is urging the Muslims not to follow through the religious practices mandated by Islam. Does Xi Jinping with his stalwarts believe that religious practices by the Muslims could emerge as a competing force if it is not nipped in the bud? Or is China simply fearful of religious wall being drawn? What good is “religious freedom” if the Muslims do not have exclusive rights to defend their faith against those who do not respect their wish to worship and carry out religious practices? If the Communist Party wants religious belief should be maintained within the compounds of religious sites such as a mosque, temple or a church, then why the mockery with pronouncements that just proves the opposite? In the name of controlling terrorism why are thousands of mosques being demolished? If China believed in “religious freedom” they would not call domes and minarets “un-Chinese.” They would not destroy or damage thousands of religious sites in recent years. They would not erode the cultural and religious heritage of the Uyghurs, Kazaks and members of other Asian ethnic groups and force them to be loyal supporters of the Communist Party.

The state is now interfering with anyone observing fasts during Ramadan, praying five times a day, growing a beard, burning incense, wearing a hijab and following dietary restrictions in regards to halal food and so forth.

China’s anxiety of radical Islamic ideas spreading across the border perhaps is a genuine one as no country wants the Islamic militants inside their territory. China is concerned about its national security, and said it will target all those who assist in the “propagation of Islam.”

Reports from Xinjiang indicate that “China has converted mosques into communist propaganda centers, entertainment halls or bars that serve alcohol, which Muslims consider haram (forbidden). People living in Xinjiang can’t talk about the elimination of mosques directly out of fear of the authorities,” said Rushan Abbas, head of the advocacy group Campaign for Uyghurs. People there “don’t say, ‘Look, this mosque became a bar,’ but they will say, ‘Oh, we have a new bar here, which was the old mosque. How wonderful,’” Abbas said. “But we get the message.”

China staunchly defends its policies in Xinjiang. President Xi has said that he will reinforce his new policies with renewed vigor as China is looking at Pakistan sponsored Islamic radicalisation of the Uyghurs. Such policies may lead to the extinction of the minority cultures. On the flip side, it could be interpreted as China is the only world power where the Maoist/Marxist-Leninist ideology continues to thrive. Perhaps the whole sham about “freedom of religion” is to hide the fact that it still embraces Marxism-Leninism and its Chinese variety, Maoism and the government wants to have a very tight grip on religion, especially Islam.

Dim Halos: Suppressing the Cult of Pope John Paul II

Binoy Kampmark

As chief conductor of the saint factory, Pope John Paul II was always going to be, in time, canonised.  Almost 500 saints were created under his watch.  The previous 600 years had seen 300.  But declaring him a saint in 2014, a mere nine years after his death, was speedy by the standards of the Vatican.  Critics, and those more reserved about the wisdom of such a move, now have more reason to question the pontiff’s hastily affixed halo.

In a 449-page report released last week by the Vatican, the large figure of ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick takes centre stage.  McCarrick was promoted by John Paul in 2000 to be archbishop of Washington DC.  He was defrocked by Pope Francis last year following a separate Vatican inquest which found McCarrick to have abused his power over seminarians and bore responsibility for sexually abusing children and adults, with some acts taking place during confession.

While Pope Francis is attempting to do some tidying up in the church, a deeper investigation was not necessarily what he had hoped for.  Despite being praised for cleansing “the Church of its dirt”, McCarrick had impressed him.  It took the savage promptings of the former Holy See ambassador to the US, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, to push the cart along.  Viganò had been one of the noisiest of accusers, claiming that 20 or so US and Vatican officials, not to mention Pope Francis himself, had been responsible for the vigilant concealment of McCarrick’s improprieties.  The Report found some of the claims to have merit, others not.

Viganò himself was not spared; stinging suggestions were made of his own efforts to either conceal or frustrate processes of investigating McCarrick.  One instance of this involved Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the newly appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, urging Viganò to take steps investigating the claims of a certain “Priest 3” from Metuchen whose lawsuit alleged “that overt sexual conduct between him and McCarrick occurred in 1991.”  He “did not take these steps and therefore never placed himself in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3.”

The lengthier Report served to sketch John Paul’s role in a sordid tale of institutional complicity, though it is rather forgiving at points.  Reports about McCarrick’s behaviour were already being received during the late 1990s. A letter dated October 28, 1999 from the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal John O’Connor, to the Apostolic Nuncio, was shared with the pope summarising various allegations against McCarrick.  These included claims of sexual conduct, actual and attempted, with priests; “a series of anonymous letters” distributed to Church officials accusing McCarrick of paedophilia with his “nephews” and instances were beds were shared with young adult men and seminarians at the Bishop’s residence in Metuchen and Newark and a beach house on the New Jersey shore.

John Paul did relent in commissioning an inquiry directed at four New Jersey bishops.  While the bishops confirmed that McCarrick had shared a bed with young men, instances of “sexual misconduct,” according to the Report, were not confirmed.  However, “three of the four American bishops provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the Holy See regarding McCarrick’s sexual conduct with young adults.” The information, in turn “appears likely to have impacted the conclusions of John Paul II’s advisors and, consequently, of John Paul II himself.”

A critical point seems to have been the personal intervention of McCarrick himself.  On August 6, 2000, he penned a letter to the then papal secretary Bishop Stanisław Dziwisz, in an attempt to counter the allegations made by Cardinal O’Connor.  “In the seventy years of my life,” wrote a solemn McCarrick, “I have never had sexual relations with any person, male or female, young or old, cleric or lay, nor have I ever abused another person or treated them with disrespect.”

Presenting himself as a model of celibate propriety, his letter was believed.  McCarrick’s name was not only put forward as a candidate for promotion but checks as to his adherence to Church doctrine were waived by Papal direction.  Dziwisz would himself go on to be stone deaf, even hostile, to claims of abuse in the Church, notably after becoming Archbishop of Krakow in 2005.

The Report also notes the culture of the period, in part to exempt the Holy See from claims of connivance.  There were no complaints “direct from a victim, whether adult or minor, about McCarrick’s misconduct.”  His supporters, to that end, “could plausibly characterize the allegations against him and ‘gossip’ and ‘rumours’.” As is often the case in such institutional investigations, notably when made by the institution itself, a bit is had both ways.

The hoodwink defence is always easy to resort to when the larder of options is bare.  Papal biographer George Weigel is familiar with the tried formula, fashioned from the greater the saint, greater the sinner school of persuasion.  “Saints are human beings, and saints, in their humanity, can be deceived.”  Given that the pontiff purports to be a representative hovering somewhere between the heavenly divine and earth bound humanity, this argument quickly collapses.  But it certainly satisfied the head of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Stanisław Gadecki, who is of the view that John Paul should be venerated further, both as a Doctor of the Church and patron saint of Europe.  (The Vatican disagrees.)  In a statement last Friday, the Archbishop insisted that John Paul had been “cynically deceived”.

John Paul had his own reasons in dealing with rumours and suspicions that flesh was being pursued with avid enthusiasm by highly placed church officials.  An enemy of the communist system, indeed celebrated within Poland as a vital figure in undermining it, he was also aware of methods used to accuse and denounce opponents without an iota of evidence.   The Catholic Church, and certainly the Polish branch, holds the line on that score.

The view was not shared by the Missouri-based National Catholic Reporter. “It is time for a difficult reckoning,” suggested the editors on November 13.  “This man, proclaimed a Catholic saint by Pope Francis in 2014, willfully put at risk children and young adults in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and across the world.”  This “undermined the global church’s witness, shattered its credibility as an institution, and set a deplorable example in ignoring the account of those abuse victims.”  The solution?  “Suppress” the cult of John Paul II.  History suggests a different trajectory: the saint abused is one adored ever more.

UK city of Hull becomes new COVID-19 epicentre fuelled by unsafe schools

Harvey Thompson

A further 501 people died across the UK in hospitals yesterday, within 28 days of testing positive for COVID-19, bringing the total official number of deaths recorded in hospitals from the virus to 53,775.

The real figure, based on analyses of excess deaths data cited by the Financial Times and the Guardian, indicates that over 70,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the UK.

Year seven pupils arrive for their first day at Kingsdale Foundation School in London, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2020. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

The port city of Hull is the latest to be named as the worst affected area of the UK for infections. Hull, the fourth-largest city in the Yorkshire and Humber area, with a population of over a quarter million, has seen its infection rate soar to 776.4 per 100,000 people.

Throughout its history, Hull has been a military supply port, trading hub, fishing and whaling centre and industrial centre. Like other de-industrialised cities, it suffered decades of decline, neglect and the growth of social deprivation. All of these social indices have worsened with the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, as unemployment and poverty has rapidly increased.

There can be no doubt that the reopening of schools at the behest of corporate profit interests has served as a transmission belt for infections in largely working class communities in Hull and every urban centre.

Barely a month after the reopening in September, half of all new infections were emanating from schools, colleges and universities, with over 30,000 school pupils infected.

Official statistics show that by November 12, 64 percent of state secondaries had reported infections, an increase from 38 percent the previous week. In the same period, cases in state primary schools had doubled to 22 percent.

In Hull alone, 57 of the city’s 97 schools have been affected, while in the wider East Riding area, cases have been reported in 103 of 150 schools.

Numbers are surging daily among pupils and staff. According to the Hull Daily Mail, since March the virus has entirely closed four schools, while other schools sent home entire year groups, or started implementing a rota system of school attendance. Many parents have pulled their children out of school to protect them and their families from the spread of the virus. One in four children in Hull are absent from school, according to official figures.

This week, Labour Party councillor Peter Clark, the cabinet member for learning and skills, declared Hull’s entire school system to be “on the brink of collapse” with almost 15,000 students and teachers currently absent, either ill with COVID-19 or in self-isolation.

In the face of unrelenting government propaganda insisting that schools are safe, many parents who recently spoke to the Hull Daily Mail expressed a class conscious understanding as to why schools had been reopened.

One mother, who did not wish to be named, decided not to send her four-year-old son back to school after his period of self-isolation finished during half term. She said: “The virus will not slow down with schools still open...

“I sent my son to school in September when they first went back as cases were a little quieter then and he was there right up until three weeks ago when his bubble closed due to an outbreak.

“I decided after half-term that he wasn’t to go back as I don’t agree that the schools should be open during lockdown. They weren’t open in the first lockdown, so why is it all of a sudden safe for them to be open now.

“I am pregnant and in third trimester and very conscious of the risks involved for me but the decision really was taken in order to keep my whole family safe.

“The children going to school should not be used as a tool to keep parents in work and the economy moving and that’s the only reason they are open in my opinion.”

Vikki Hallet has removed her 14-year-old son from secondary school. She said: “I kept my son off after having panic attacks and really worried after having to shield the first time round. It’s alright people saying they should remain open for mental health but they haven’t seen my son’s mental health throughout this.”

The newspaper reported that many parents were only sending their children to school under the threat of fines.

Newington and Gipsyville—a western suburb of Hull which currently has the equivalent of 1,129.5 infections per 100,000 people—is one of the most deprived wards in England with poverty entrenched for years. In 2015, 18 percent of households were living in fuel poverty and 31 percent of dependent children were classed as being in poverty. A fifth of working age people were forced to claim social security benefits in November 2016.

On November 9, all 420 pupils at the primary school in Gipsyville were sent home after an outbreak of the virus. Many parents fear sending their children back.

Gavin Storey, who has Crohn’s disease and severe osteoporosis, leaving him vulnerable to infection, has a daughter at the school. He told the Guardian; “Our Leah isn’t going back. She’s frightened of bringing it [Covid] home and then her mam and dad die.” His older three children are also at home after Sirius Academy West, the local high school, closed to all pupils except one year group.

Storey’s comments attest to a growing sense of political awareness among workers regarding the class questions raised by the pandemic. The Guardian notes, “Like many in Gipsyville, Storey sniffs a government conspiracy… he thinks it suits the ruling class to let the virus run riot through deprived communities like his, where you can buy a three-bed terrace for £52,000.

“It seems like they are trying to get rid of us,” he said. “That way when it’s over they won’t have to spend so much money around here. Let the kids go to school, spread it to their parents and then let them all die. Most of the people in the country who are on benefits will be dead.”

The terrible situation in cities like Hull follows a decade of brutal austerity policies, imposed from 2008 by Labour and from 2010 by Conservative-led governments and facilitated by largely Labour controlled local councils and their trade union partners.

In 2019, a third of children in Hull were living below the official poverty line. This coincided with lower levels of official unemployment, as most of these children were in families of employed parents in low-paid jobs.

A survey conducted at the time by the Association of School and College Leaders showed that 96 percent of headteachers surveyed said pupil poverty had increased over the past few years. 91 percent said they had to provide clothes for disadvantaged pupils. All but three of the 407 headteachers surveyed said they had made cuts to their school budgets since 2015.

Sarah Bone, headteacher of Headlands School in Bridlington, near Hull, was quoted in the national media last year saying, “We have far too many children with no heating in the home, no food in the cupboards, washing themselves with cold water, walking to school with holes in their shoes and trousers that are ill-fitted and completely worn out, and living on one hot meal a day provided at school.”

As is the case globally, health care workers have been disproportionately affected and killed by the virus. Nicola Diles, a nurse at Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, died on Sunday from COVID-19. She was the third member of the team at the trust to have died after contracting the virus. Adrian Cruttenden, an administrator in the trust’s medical records team, died in Hull Royal Infirmary on May 27. Biomedical scientist Richzeal Albufera, who worked in the laboratories at Castle Hill Hospital, in Cottingham, north west of Hull, died on June 9.

EU policy responsible for the massive death toll in the Mediterranean Sea

Martin Kreickenbaum

More than 100 refugees drowned in four shipping accidents in the central Mediterranean Sea last week. On the beach of al-Khums in Libya alone, 74 bodies were washed up on Thursday. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), just 47 refugees survived that day, after being rescued by fishing boats and the coast guard.

This means that the number of refugees drowned in the central Mediterranean has risen to over 900 this year. In total, more than 1,200 refugees have lost their lives trying to reach Europe in 2020. Many other incidents at sea with loss of lives are likely unrecorded. All of these deaths are a direct consequence of the criminal exclusion policy of the European Union, which rejects refugees at the continent’s external borders using illegal and criminal methods.

Refugees rescued in the Mediterranean in 2014 © Italian Navy/M. Sestini

Only a few hours after the bodies of the 74 refugees were discovered on the Libyan coast, the organisation Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) provided medical aid to three women in another shipping accident near the Libyan port city of Sorman. The women, who were pulled out of the water by fishermen, had witnessed 20 refugees drowning. “They are in shock and terrified,” MSF reported on Twitter. “They had to watch how loved ones disappeared in the waves and died before their eyes.”

The mild autumn weather in Europe has encouraged refugees to attempt the perilous crossing of the Mediterranean. However, since October 1 at least eight refugee boats have capsized, and at least 250 refugees drowned.

This total includes the case of a rubber dinghy that had set off from Sabratha in Libya with almost 100 men, women and children on board. The self-made dinghy quickly lost air and the boat literally broke apart, plunging all of the occupants into the sea. Aid workers on the “Open Arms” rescue ship confronted a dramatic scene, with almost all of the people desperately fighting for their lives.

The workers documented the rescue operation on video, including the panicked cries of a 20-year-old mother from Guinea, “Where is my baby? I have lost my baby!” The crew of the “Open Arms” eventually found the half-drowned baby named Joseph. Due to his serious condition, the rescue workers called for a rescue helicopter from Lampedusa. When it arrived, Joseph had already died of cardiac arrest. Five other refugees did not survive.

“We did everything we could to save the passengers,” the helpers explained. “This incident happened only a few kilometres off the coast of an indifferent Europe. Instead of providing a well-organised sea rescue service, Europe just buries its head in the sand and pretends not to notice the graveyard the Mediterranean Sea has become.”

A spokesman for the organisation “Alarm Phone,” which operates an emergency telephone service for refugees in distress at sea, commented on recent tragedies to the British Guardian newspaper. “This is a bloodbath on Europe’s external borders. What more can we say? We have been calling for fundamental change for years, but the dying continues. It is devastating.”

A cold-blooded deliberate policy

The fact is that the European Union has deliberately withdrawn from sea rescue in the Mediterranean. The cold-blooded policy adopted by decision-makers in Brussels, Berlin, Paris and Rome regards the deaths of hundreds of refugees each year in the Mediterranean as a deterrent aimed at ensuring that others do not dare attempt the crossing.

This argument is both false and inhuman. The withdrawal of the state-organised European sea rescue service has not led to a decrease in the number of crossings. The number of refugees who have landed in Italy this year has tripled to 31,000 so far. In 2019 this figure stood at about 11,000.

The increase in attempts to flee to Europe is primarily due to the devastating conditions prevailing in Libya, where militias financed by Europe have been waging a bloody civil war for years over the exploitation of valuable oil and gas resources. Refugees stranded in Libya, who often come from other war-torn countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, have been caught between the fronts and are interned and kept as slaves under inhuman conditions. These people then resort to any means to leave their Libyan hellhole.

In order to prevent them from fleeing to Europe, the EU has not only stopped sea rescue operations, it is also preventing private sea rescue organisations from helping people in need.

Four rescue ships are currently being prevented from leaving port on the basis of the flimsiest excuses. In one case additional paperwork has been requested; for another further technical tests were required. The Louise Michel, sponsored by the British street artist Banksy, is stuck in a Spanish port; SeaWatch 4 in Palermo, Sicily; the Alan Kurdi run by the organisation Sea Eye in Olbia, Sardinia; and the Ocean Viking run by SOS Méditerranée in Porto Empedocle, Sicily.

Only the Spanish vessel Open Arms was able to undertake a rescue mission but is now waiting with almost 260 refugees on board for permission to enter a European port. This has proven to be a tug-of-war over the past few months with both Italy and Malta using the COVID-19 pandemic to declare their ports unsafe. The Open Arms will therefore not be allowed to enter a port until other EU member states agree to accept the refugees on board. Responsibility for this tragic train of events lies with the EU and its deliberate calculation aimed at wearying private sea rescuers to the point where they give up.

The withdrawal of the European Union from rescue operations in the Mediterranean is a scandal and a blatant violation of international law, with fatal consequences for the refugees concerned. The EU has handed over sea rescue missions to the Libyan “Coast Guard,” which it has trained and equipped. In reality, these guards are often the same militias who wage civil war and treat refugees worse than cattle.

More than 11,000 refugees on their way to Europe were “rescued” by the coast guard and brought back to Libya this year. They had sought to make their way to Europe to find refuge from war, persecution and the Libyan henchmen who had robbed, blackmailed and mistreated them under the eyes of the EU. Now they are once again being interned and enslaved.

The Canary Islands

The sealing off of the European Union from refugees begins thousands of kilometres west of the central Mediterranean. Under conditions where the EU is exerting massive pressure on North African states, such as Mali, Niger and Algeria, to take action against refugees and migrant workers, escape routes are becoming increasingly dangerous.

One of these routes now leads along the West African coast towards the Canary Islands, which belong to Spain. On October 23, one boat broke apart on this route after its engine exploded, and 140 refugees drowned. Last weekend alone, more than 2,200 refugees landed on the Canary Islands within three days in small fishing boats that had undertaken the crossing of more than 1,000 kilometres. Since the beginning of the year, more than 14,500 have sought to flee via this route.

Most of the refugees were detected by the Spanish coast guard and brought to the port of Arguineguin on Gran Canaria. The camp, where refugees are housed for days, is completely overcrowded and has the nickname “Camp of Shame.”

The camp “is completely unacceptable, degrading and even endangers the health of the migrants,” Mustafa Galah Leman from Catholic Caritas on Gran Canaria told Deutsche Welle. “We call on the government and all those responsible to make more resources available and guarantee the humanitarian reception of refugees worthy of an EU country.”

Although EU Interior Commissioner Ylva Johannson expressed concern about the increase in the number of refugees on this deadly escape route, she stressed it was now important “that those who have no right to international protection are effectively repatriated.”

The route to the Canary Islands is the most deadly in the world. According to IOM estimates, one in 16 refugees does not survive the crossing. The number of unreported cases is extremely high, since boats repeatedly miss the islands and drift out into the Atlantic Ocean.

The role of Frontex

Despite the rising toll of death and misery, EU interior ministers agreed last week to further strengthen the sealing off of the external borders in the wake of the recent terror attacks in France and Austria. “We need to know who is entering and who is leaving,” said German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer after the video conference.

The EU interior ministers also gave their backing to the European border protection agency Frontex, which has come under increasing fire in recent weeks for tolerating the illegal repatriation of refugees at borders, so-called “pushbacks.” In some cases, Frontex officials were directly involved.

According to the European Charter of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on Refugees, every refugee’s application for asylum must be heard and examined individually. The brutal repression of people at the EU’s external borders, without any examination of their reasons for flight, is a violation of the principle of equal treatment.

The media organizations Der Spiegel, Bellingcat, ARD, Lighthouse Reports and TV Asahi have collected material that clearly demonstrates the involvement of Frontex officials in these pushbacks.

In one documented case, border guards brought a boat to waters near the Greek island of Lesbos. The guards then sabotaged the engine and forced refugees at gunpoint to tie their boat to a speedboat of the Greek coast guard. A Romanian Frontex boat observed this illegal action without intervening. A German Frontex boat documented the incident, which has remained without consequences.

“These pushbacks violate the ban on collective rejection and maritime law,” according to Dana Schmalz, international law expert at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. The EU Border Protection Agency, however, denies any involvement in the pushbacks. Apparently, the agency’s internal files are being doctored to ensure that no human rights violations appear. This is how the pushbacks observed in the reports are transformed into legal “returns” (repatriations).

Within a few years Frontex has become a powerful EU authority that is not subject to any public control. With its billion-euro budget, the EU border protection agency can draw on its own ships and vehicles, order its own armaments and undertake ruthless measures against refugees at EU borders. The public has only limited information rights vis-à-vis Frontex, and refugees cannot legally defend themselves against it. Neither the EU Parliament nor the EU Commission is willing or able to fully control this bureaucratic monster.

The disenfranchisement of refugees has assumed staggering dimensions since Frontex was founded. Evidence of more than 800 cases of illegal pushbacks has now been collected in Croatia, documenting the brutal actions of European border officials.

In October 2020, the aid organisation Danish Refugee Council documented the statements of a group of 23 refugees and immigrants who related that men in uniform with balaclavas forced them to strip naked and then beat them brutally, one after the other with sticks, whips and kicks.

In Croatia, Frontex officials have observed massive human rights violations on the country’s border with Bosnia-Herzegovina but have said nothing. The same policy of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” applies in Greece. At the governmental level, no EU member state considers it necessary to complain about violence against refugees at external borders. Brussels diplomats explained the official EU position to the internet portal Euractiv as follows: “These people are trying to cross the border illegally through forests. And there is sometimes violence when the police try to catch those who run away.”

Frontex Director Fabrice Leggieri is due to respond by the end of November to the accusations of Frontex’s involvement in pushbacks, in an appearance before the EU Commission. The border protection agency, however, has little to fear. The use of brutality and terror against refugees and their disenfranchisement is a consensus among European governments.

Vote breakdown shows class interests, not race, drove Trump’s defeat in Midwest “battleground” states

Barry Grey

The defeat of Donald Trump in an election that produced the biggest turnout since 1900 was an expression of broad popular opposition to the fascistic politics of his administration. That it was far more an anti-Trump than a pro-Joe Biden vote was demonstrated by the poor showing of the Democratic Party in down-ballot contests (Congress, state legislatures and governors).

The election results overall were a clear refutation of the efforts of the Democratic Party and allied media outlets (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CNN) to promote a racialist narrative, which interprets virtually every aspect of American society as an expression of “white supremacy” and the supposed innate racism of white people, especially white workers.

The ideological and political function of this right-wing brand of politics is to obscure the central division in capitalist society, socioeconomic class, and sow divisions within the working class.

But as the World Socialist Web Site explained on November 6:

A comparison of the results of the 2016 and 2020 elections shows that the major factor that turned the election was the impact of the pandemic and the economic crisis on a substantial section of working class whites who cast their vote for Biden.

The Brookings Institution noted the shift in voting patterns nationally that cut against the racialist narrative. It reported:

While whites continued to favor the Republican candidate in 2020—as they have in every presidential election since 1968—it is notable that this margin was reduced from 20 percent to 17 percent nationally. At the same time, the Democratic margins for each of the major nonwhite groups was somewhat reduced. The Black Democratic margin—while still high, at 75 percent—was the lowest in a presidential election since 2004. The Latino or Hispanic and Asian American Democratic margins of 33 percent and 27 percent were the lowest since the 2004 and 2008 elections, respectively.

An analysis of the vote results in the three Midwestern “battleground” states that were key to Biden’s victory—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—confirms that the critical factor was a turn by substantial sections of white workers to oppose Trump.

In 2016, the shift of the so-called “blue wall” of industrial states in the Midwest gave the election to Trump. The Democratic Party and its pseudo-left satellite organizations attributed the stunning loss of these states to white working-class racism, ignoring the fact that all three states had voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and by substantial margins.

In this election, both candidates increased their votes in the three states, but the increase in votes for Biden exceeded that for Trump. The general pattern was a substantial increase in votes for the Democratic candidate in urban areas, particularly in the suburbs of major cities, and reduced margins of victory for Trump in more rural areas that he won four years ago.

Michigan

In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in Michigan by a slim margin of 10,704 votes, or 0.3 percent. In this election, Biden outpolled Trump by 148,000 votes, a margin of 2.64 percent. Turnout in the state was a record 5.5 million, higher than in 2008.

Trump added 365,000 votes to his 2016 total, but Biden added 522,000 votes to those received by Clinton. The big difference was the increased vote for Biden over Clinton in the mostly white suburbs of Detroit, combined with significantly smaller margins for Trump in more rural counties.

In the largely white working-class Detroit suburbs of Macomb County (which had voted for Obama twice) Trump once again won the vote, but with a significantly smaller margin than four years ago. In 2016, Trump won 54 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 42 percent. This time he polled 53 percent as compared to 45 percent for Biden.

The Democratic candidate made up even more ground in the Republican stronghold of Livingston County, an exurb of Detroit, and in Ottawa County, just outside Grand Rapids. Trump won all but 11 of the state’s 83 counties, but his margin of victory in many of the counties he took fell substantially.

It dropped 8 percent in Emmet County, 9 percent in Ottawa County, and nearly 10 percent in Grand Traverse. In Antrim County, Trump’s margin fell by 15 percent.

On the other hand, Biden received 1,000 fewer votes in the city of Detroit than Clinton received in 2016, while Trump’s vote in the city rose by 5,000 votes. This was in line with the national pattern, in which large counties with non-whites in the majority saw a 20 percent increase in votes for Biden, but a higher, 29 percent increase, for Trump. This reflected an increase in socioeconomic polarization among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans.

Data from exit polls show even more clearly the dominant role of social-economic class in the flipping of Michigan back to the Democratic column in the presidential vote.

Trump’s margin among white voters in the state shrank from 21 percentage points in 2016 to 12 points this year. In contrast, Trump’s deficit among black voters narrowed from 86 percentage points to 80 points.

Trump’s lead among white men shrank from 35 percentage points in 2016 to 22 points. Among white women, his margin declined from 8 percentage points to 2 points.

Among black men, Trump’s deficit declined from 79 percent to 72 percent. Among black women, the margin of defeat narrowed from 93 percent to 86 percent.

Whites with no college degree gave Trump a lead of 31 points over Clinton, but only 20 points over Biden. But Trump’s deficit among voters of color with no college degree declined from 70 percentage points to 52.

Similarly, Trump narrowed his loss among non-white college graduates from 70 percentage points in 2016 to 52 points this year.

Exit polling that breaks down the vote according to household income underscores the same dynamic. One of the sharpest changes occurred among voters with a family income between $30,000 and $50,000. In 2016, Trump won this cohort by 8 percentage points. This time, he lost to Biden by 14 points.

In the $50,000-$100,000 range, a largely working-class cohort, Trump went from an eight-percentage-point win to a three-point loss. In the category of under $100,000, Trump went from a three-percentage-point deficit in 2016 to a nine-point loss this year.

Pennsylvania

In the biggest turnout since 1960, Biden flipped Pennsylvania, gaining a margin of some 73,000 votes, or 1.1 percent of the ballots cast. Trump had won the state four years earlier by some 44,000 votes, or 0.7 percent.

The pattern was similar to that in Michigan. Biden piled up his margin of victory not in Philadelphia, with its large African American population, but in the largely white suburbs of Philadelphia as well as in the Pittsburgh area, while cutting into Trump’s margins in more rural counties.

Turnout in Philadelphia precincts with a predominantly black population was down 6 percent from 2016. Trump’s vote in the city as a whole increased by some 20,000 to 18 percent of the votes cast. Biden’s vote declined by more than 20,000 from vote Clinton’s tally and his percentage fell by 3 percentage points from Clinton’s 84 percent.

Biden had gains in the Philadelphia suburbs of Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Bucks counties, outpolling Clinton’s 2016 total by more than 85,000. He won 48,000 more votes in taking Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, than Clinton received in winning the county in 2016.

Biden flipped two counties that had gone for Trump four years ago: Northampton (Easton) and Erie. All the others had the same winning party, but with improved margins for Biden.

Biden bettered Clinton’s 2016 winning margin in Lackawanna County, which includes Scranton, beating Trump by 8 percentage points as compared to Clinton’s 3.5 points.

Biden, Clinton and Obama all won Dauphin County, home to the state capital, Harrisburg, but Biden’s margin was substantially higher: 8.4 points compared to 2.9 and 6, respectively.

Perhaps most significant was Trump’s reduced margin of victory in rural and small-town Pennsylvania. Trump’s margin, for example, fell by 5 points in Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre) and 3 points in Lancaster County.

Exit polling data underlined the shift in the working-class vote, particularly among a section of white workers, which led to Trump’s defeat in Pennsylvania.

Trump’s leading margin among white men in the state declined from 32 percentage points in 2016 to 25 points in this election. His deficit among voters with a household income under $50,000 increased from 12 percentage points to 14 points.

In the $50,000-$100,000 cohort, Trump’s margin of victory declined from 14 percentage points to 4 points.

On the other hand, while Trump’s lead among white voters with no college degree held steady at 32 percentage points, among voters of color with no degree, Trump’s deficit declined from 76 percentage points to 67 points.

Wisconsin

Trump defeated Clinton in 2016 in Wisconsin by some 22,700 votes, a percentage margin of 0.7. This year, Biden took the state by about 20,500 votes, duplicating Trump’s 2016 margin of 0.7 percent.

Again, the decisive factor was a swing from Trump to Biden by sections of white workers and middle-class people, particularly in the urban centers and suburbs. Biden marginally increased his margin of victory in Milwaukee over Clinton’s. A more significant shift came in Milwaukee’s three traditionally Republican, predominantly white suburban counties: Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington. This year they went for Trump, as in 2016, but by substantially narrower margins. In Ozaukee, for example, Trump’s advantage dropped by 7 percentage points.

Brown County, home to Green Bay, is a swing county that voted for Obama in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016. While turnout was up 12 percent this year, Trump’s margin of victory declined. Trump won by 10,300 votes. In 2016, he won by 14,000 votes. His margin of victory in the county fell from 10.8 percent to 3 percent.

Trump actually improved his performance in Wisconsin’s rural counties, but could not make up for the anti-Trump shift in more urban areas.

One significant Wisconsin cohort that defies the racialist narrative is white non-degree-holding men. Trump’s advantage in this group fell sharply from 40 percent in 2016 to 27 percent this year. Another is black men, whose vote for Trump increased from 8 percent to 12 percent, while Biden’s percentage declined from 90 percent to 87 percent.

Exit polling based on income cohorts provides the starkest data on a working-class shift away from Trump. Trump’s deficit among voters with a household income of less than $30,000 shot up from 9 percentage points in 2016 to 35 points this year.

In the $30,000-$50,000 group, Trump went from a tie (at 43 percent) four years ago to a 12 point deficit (43 percent to 55 percent) this year.

In the $50,000-$100,000 category, Trump’s lead fell by 3 percentage points.

***

There is no let-up in the efforts of the Democratic Party and allied media outlets, led by the New York Times, to distort the actual voting results and portray Biden’s victory as the result of a surge in votes by blacks, which overcame the entrenched racism of whites.

Shortly after Election Day, New York Times columnist Charles Blow published a column pointing to Trump’s gains among African Americans and concluding absurdly that it was a manifestation of the “power of the white patriarchy.”

In a somewhat more nuanced attempt to prop up the racialist template, Times columnist Jamelle Bouie on November 18 wrote a column that sought to obscure the socioeconomic and class issues underlying the vote results. Boule claimed that Trump improved his performance among minority voters simply because he supported the issuing of $1,200 stimulus checks and temporary unemployment benefits under the bipartisan CARES Act.

This, of course, ignores the fact that the unemployment supplement expired nearly four months ago and no additional relief has been provided, leaving millions of workers, black and white, on the edge of destitution.

In the face of the pandemic, mass unemployment, Trump’s dictatorial conspiracies and the threat of war, it is critical that the working class become conscious of the class divisions that dominate capitalist society and of its own independent interests. That understanding does not develop simply spontaneously. Workers are subjected to immense pressures and a constant stream of propaganda and lies from the corporate media and both big business parties.

Millions of workers who voted for Trump did so not because they support his fascistic politics, but because they are disgusted with the Democratic Party, which is no less an instrument of Wall Street and the military and no less hostile to the working class than Trump. Its right-wing politics of race and identity succeed only in sowing divisions and confusion in the working class. Seeing no progressive alternative, sections of workers are susceptible to Trump’s phony posturing as an opponent of the establishment.

However, despite the contradictions and problems, the trajectory within the working class is to the left, and mass struggles are on the agenda. The crucial issue before workers and young people is the building of the Socialist Equality Party as the new political leadership to develop genuine class consciousness based on the common interests of all workers in the struggle against capitalism and for socialism.