by tyler | Feb 1, 2024 | CNN, opinions
In recent weeks, India has been gripped by the ghastly murder cases of two women. Yet again, however, the breathless media coverage has lost sight of a bigger picture.
The murder of 26-year-old Shraddha Walkar has made front page news across the country on account of its gruesome nature. According to police, Walkar’s partner Aftab Poonawala strangled her, cut her body into pieces and stored them in his fridge, before scattering them across parts of New Delhi.
Poonawala confessed in court to killing Walkar, reportedly claiming he acted “in the heat of the moment.”
Since the case came to light, Indian media has prodded it from every possible angle, including using the couple’s different faiths to fuel a “love jihad” narrative – the right-wing conspiracy theory that Hindu women are “lured” into relationships by Muslim men.
No stone has been left unturned in the click-bait coverage. Poonawala was apparently “inspired by” the TV series “Dexter,” which features a forensic specialist who moonlights as a serial killer. And the couple met on Bumble, a popular dating app. A subsequent piece covered the case from this angle, noting that the murder has prompted women to delete dating apps while “experts blame [these] platforms.”
As a single woman, and as a journalist, these brash, un-nuanced takes are incredibly frustrating to read.
Why is the onus of women’s safety solely on women? Why is it so easy to name and blame everything except the obvious? The issue here is not with the apps, or with the TV series, but with India’s deeply patriarchal society, which offers women little to no agency.
It is against this backdrop that violent murderers like Poonawala emerge.
Walkar had previously flagged concerns for her safety with the Mumbai Police in 2020, but withdrew her initial complaint on a follow-up police visit.
While such actions are not uncommon among victims of intimate partner violence, this aspect of the case – that Walkar was allegedly already a victim of intimate partner violence – has been overshadowed by more sensationalist narratives.
According to the British Medical Journal, one in three Indian women is likely to have been subjected to intimate partner violence. But only one in 10 of these women officially report it.
India is not alone. Globally, according to UN chief António Guterres, every 11 minutes, a woman or girl is killed by an intimate partner or family member.
Other similar – equally gory – cases have made recent headlines in India too. Aayushi Chaudhary, a 21-year-old Indian woman, was reportedly found murdered with her body stuffed in a suitcase.
Police have arrested her parents reportedly in connection to a suspected “honor killing,” a term used to describe murders where the victim has brought “shame” to their family, typically by choosing to marry outside their faith or caste.
In India, honor killings claimed 145 lives between 2017 and 2019, according to the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (the actual number is believed to be higher).
But all these stories point to the same underlying issue: control over women through patriarchy. If it takes gruesome headlines to start a conversation about violence against women, how are we ever going to address the role men play in perpetrating this violence?
How are we going to discuss the ways violence fluctuates along lines of class, sexual orientation or caste? (In India, 54% of Dalit women, the group of people most oppressed by centuries old caste hierarchy, reported being physically assaulted and 23% reported being raped.) Will we ever be able to address the minutiae of aggressions women face in the workplace?
Even as a single woman with a fair amount of privilege, I’m constantly bewildered by the road bumps I face living in India.
When I moved to Mumbai over four years ago, I was shocked at how difficult it was to find and rent a flat because I was single. “The landlord’s saying he won’t rent to a single girl,” my broker told me at the time. “It’s seen as… too dangerous.” What the danger was or is remains unclear to me till date.
But this is an obstacle every single woman faces in this self-branded “city of dreams,” exacerbated by factors such as age, faith, caste, sexual orientation and gender expression.
Due to cultural and social beliefs and economic setbacks, most Indians live at home in “joint families.” It’s common to see a bride leave her parents’ and move in with her husband’s entire family after marriage, for example.
Which is why, for the most part, the freedom to roam continues to be restricted to those women who can afford that privilege. Walkar was essentially punished by society for choosing to live life on her own terms, and her choices continue to be dissected by the press.
She chose to find a partner of her own on a dating app; she chose to stay in her interfaith partnership despite her parents’ objections; she chose to “live-in” with her partner. The subtext in how this has been covered is clear: serves her right for going against her parents, against the larger values of Indian society.
The failed “love marriage” (where a woman has chosen her own partner, instead of an “arranged marriage”) is also a cautionary tale whispered by elderly aunties and grandmothers to the younger women in their lives.
Women are constantly expected to defend their choice to be single, unmarried and child-free. When I tell married people I’ve unlearned the idea of settling down with someone as a life milestone, I’m frequently told it’s just a phase I’m going through or that I simply haven’t found the right person yet.
But I’m not alone, with an increasing number of women choosing to be single (both in India and globally).
Perhaps if Indian society concerned itself more with how its men are reared than why women are choosing to live life differently today, these conversations wouldn’t have to follow the tragic deaths of two young women.
by tyler | Jan 31, 2024 | CNN, opinions
In recent weeks, India has been gripped by the ghastly murder cases of two women. Yet again, however, the breathless media coverage has lost sight of a bigger picture.
The murder of 26-year-old Shraddha Walkar has made front page news across the country on account of its gruesome nature. According to police, Walkar’s partner Aftab Poonawala strangled her, cut her body into pieces and stored them in his fridge, before scattering them across parts of New Delhi.
Poonawala confessed in court to killing Walkar, reportedly claiming he acted “in the heat of the moment.”
Since the case came to light, Indian media has prodded it from every possible angle, including using the couple’s different faiths to fuel a “love jihad” narrative – the right-wing conspiracy theory that Hindu women are “lured” into relationships by Muslim men.
No stone has been left unturned in the click-bait coverage. Poonawala was apparently “inspired by” the TV series “Dexter,” which features a forensic specialist who moonlights as a serial killer. And the couple met on Bumble, a popular dating app. A subsequent piece covered the case from this angle, noting that the murder has prompted women to delete dating apps while “experts blame [these] platforms.”
As a single woman, and as a journalist, these brash, un-nuanced takes are incredibly frustrating to read.
Why is the onus of women’s safety solely on women? Why is it so easy to name and blame everything except the obvious? The issue here is not with the apps, or with the TV series, but with India’s deeply patriarchal society, which offers women little to no agency.
It is against this backdrop that violent murderers like Poonawala emerge.
Walkar had previously flagged concerns for her safety with the Mumbai Police in 2020, but withdrew her initial complaint on a follow-up police visit.
While such actions are not uncommon among victims of intimate partner violence, this aspect of the case – that Walkar was allegedly already a victim of intimate partner violence – has been overshadowed by more sensationalist narratives.
According to the British Medical Journal, one in three Indian women is likely to have been subjected to intimate partner violence. But only one in 10 of these women officially report it.
India is not alone. Globally, according to UN chief António Guterres, every 11 minutes, a woman or girl is killed by an intimate partner or family member.
Other similar – equally gory – cases have made recent headlines in India too. Aayushi Chaudhary, a 21-year-old Indian woman, was reportedly found murdered with her body stuffed in a suitcase.
Police have arrested her parents reportedly in connection to a suspected “honor killing,” a term used to describe murders where the victim has brought “shame” to their family, typically by choosing to marry outside their faith or caste.
In India, honor killings claimed 145 lives between 2017 and 2019, according to the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (the actual number is believed to be higher).
But all these stories point to the same underlying issue: control over women through patriarchy. If it takes gruesome headlines to start a conversation about violence against women, how are we ever going to address the role men play in perpetrating this violence?
How are we going to discuss the ways violence fluctuates along lines of class, sexual orientation or caste? (In India, 54% of Dalit women, the group of people most oppressed by centuries old caste hierarchy, reported being physically assaulted and 23% reported being raped.) Will we ever be able to address the minutiae of aggressions women face in the workplace?
Even as a single woman with a fair amount of privilege, I’m constantly bewildered by the road bumps I face living in India.
When I moved to Mumbai over four years ago, I was shocked at how difficult it was to find and rent a flat because I was single. “The landlord’s saying he won’t rent to a single girl,” my broker told me at the time. “It’s seen as… too dangerous.” What the danger was or is remains unclear to me till date.
But this is an obstacle every single woman faces in this self-branded “city of dreams,” exacerbated by factors such as age, faith, caste, sexual orientation and gender expression.
Due to cultural and social beliefs and economic setbacks, most Indians live at home in “joint families.” It’s common to see a bride leave her parents’ and move in with her husband’s entire family after marriage, for example.
Which is why, for the most part, the freedom to roam continues to be restricted to those women who can afford that privilege. Walkar was essentially punished by society for choosing to live life on her own terms, and her choices continue to be dissected by the press.
She chose to find a partner of her own on a dating app; she chose to stay in her interfaith partnership despite her parents’ objections; she chose to “live-in” with her partner. The subtext in how this has been covered is clear: serves her right for going against her parents, against the larger values of Indian society.
The failed “love marriage” (where a woman has chosen her own partner, instead of an “arranged marriage”) is also a cautionary tale whispered by elderly aunties and grandmothers to the younger women in their lives.
Women are constantly expected to defend their choice to be single, unmarried and child-free. When I tell married people I’ve unlearned the idea of settling down with someone as a life milestone, I’m frequently told it’s just a phase I’m going through or that I simply haven’t found the right person yet.
But I’m not alone, with an increasing number of women choosing to be single (both in India and globally).
Perhaps if Indian society concerned itself more with how its men are reared than why women are choosing to live life differently today, these conversations wouldn’t have to follow the tragic deaths of two young women.
by tyler | Dec 12, 2023 | CNN, opinions
(This article was published in March, 2023.)
Russia’s most famous dissident and critic of Vladimir Putin, Alexey Navalny, remains locked in solitary confinement at the maximum-security IK-6 penal colony at Melekhovo, in ailing health, and according to those closest to him, subjected to torture intended to break his spirit.
Despite Navalny’s suffering, Odessa Rae, one of the producers of Oscar-nominated documentary and CNN Film “Navalny,” has no doubt that the opposition politician is still finding ways to delight in his own dark – and disarming – sense of humor.
“I’m sure it’s his humor that is keeping his spirit alive,” she told CNN Opinion. “He has a particular penchant for dark humor, so he’s probably finding lots of great content in prison.”
Rae should know. In late 2020, she spent months filming with Navalny and his family in Germany’s Black Forest while he recovered from a near lethal dose of the deadly nerve agent Novichok delivered by an elite Russian intelligence unit (which the Kremlin denies).
Now, as fears for Navalny’s health grow, and a growing chorus of Russian lawyers and medical professionals call for an end to his “blatant torture” in prison, Rae answered questions from CNN Opinion’s Sheena McKenzie and Jane Carr, revealing new details about Navalny’s confinement – and reflected on his enduring source of strength.
CNN: You spent many months with Navalny in Germany while he was recovering from poisoning – what are your memories of that time and what did it reveal about him?
Odessa Rae: I will never forget the first time I met Alexey Navalny. Daniel Roher (director of “Navalny”), Christo Grozev (investigative journalist) and I drove into the night, through the Black Forest after a few weeks of trying to arrange a meeting with Navalny.
Our car was packed with camera gear. We had high hopes, but no official agreement to film had been made. Upon arriving, we were immediately charmed by Navalny’s welcoming energy, warm smile and the ease at which he initiates conversation. We easily let go of any intimidating preconceptions we had about him.
Once we started filming, we would ask, “Alexey, can we come film you running? Brushing your teeth? Waking up?” He sometimes thought our requests sounded absurd, but he was always willing and accepted us with a good spirit. We would end long days with his favorite local food: the Doner Kebab.
The security situation that he lived in was very clear from the first meeting. The team was very cautious about who they let in. Christo vouched for us but we had to earn their trust. We offered, “two months in, if you don’t like it, we will quit and give you all the footage.”
They agreed to start that way, but it came with endless questions and intensive background checks. They even wanted to look at our bank accounts to make sure we were not being paid by any government entity. Navalny lived in hiding.
I think we were accepted by his team for a few reasons. At the time we were just independent filmmakers, we were not yet associated with any major production company. We had no outside funding. We arrived in the Black Forest with the cost of the rental gear piled onto my credit card. We were willing to put our all into this film. We adapted to his security needs. No one knew where we were or what we were doing. All emails ceased, communication was done through encrypted messaging.
It took a lot of gymnastics to keep the footage safe. We spent long hours in the car, in winter conditions driving to various locations. Often we were met with Covid restrictions. My passwords became a three-step process with an external security key, which is how I continue to live. We traded stability for the privilege to spend unforgettable time getting to know an extraordinary human being.
CNN: Please describe Navalny’s current prison conditions and the physical and mental toll.
Rae: Navalny is in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. He has been there for the most part since last August. The main reason he is in solitary confinement is because of his vocal anti-war activism from his jail cell. He is one of Russia’s loudest voices against the war in Ukraine. He even uses his court time to protest the war.
They are torturing him in prison. They weaponize other inmates by putting an inmate in the infirmary until they become ill (contract an illness from other patients in the infirmary) and then put the sick inmate in Navalny’s cell.
Recently when Navalny became ill, almost certainly having contracted an illness from one of the weaponized inmates, even with a high fever, they restricted his water intake to only three glasses per day.
They introduced another inmate into the cell next to him who screams for hours and hours at night. He is not able to lie down during the day as his bed is chained up to the wall from 5 AM to 9 PM. They deprive him of family visits and of basic necessities like winter boots. He has lost close to 7 kilos (approximately 15 pounds) in the last couple months and has been repeatedly denied medical treatment.
CNN: Navalny recently tweeted: “I laugh at least thrice a day, even when I’m all alone in the cell.” How does he maintain his sense of humor amid the darkness? What gives him that strength?
Rae: Navalny has both an insatiable curiosity and a terrific sense of humor – both of which I’m sure serve him well in prison. We actually talked about this one day while driving him to a shoot.
We had a rigorous schedule, with many sleepless nights. Often I had the privilege of picking him up. I found Navalny to be a very open conversationalist. If he didn’t know something he would not hide it. On one of our drives he set out to pick my brain about life in Hollywood. “Tell me about the #MeToo movement.” Or: “Explain film production to me.”
On another long drive, we discussed his earlier experiences in prison. He told me that one of the greatest things he learned was to appreciate the small things, the tiny little things that we don’t normally think about on a daily basis – like brushing your teeth whenever you want, or touching a loved ones face, or a warm shower.
I can just imagine him applying this skill now in prison, looking at a prison guard and finding something entertaining about him or her, the sound of a bell, or receiving a funny letter. He has a way of connecting to people through humor. It was the way he often brought lightness to a tense situation.
We had a group chat that was filled with jokes. There was lots of banter about Canadian hockey versus Russian hockey. I’m sure it’s his humor that is keeping his spirit alive. He has a particular penchant for dark humor so he’s probably finding lots of great content in prison.
CNN: You’re working on another documentary about Ukraine. Can you tell us more about the project and what you’ve seen in Ukraine?
Rae: This project in Ukraine would not have been possible without my producing partners on the Navalny film, Diane Becker, Shane Boris and Melanie Miller. They came on board and helped me carry the weight of Navalny. They were the team that Daniel and I needed. We became close like a family, highlighting for me the necessity of teamwork.
At this time, the Ukraine documentary is still in the filming process. I’ve been following some individuals, operating within Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, who have been involved in crucial negotiations. What I have seen is horrific. And always at the back of my mind is the awareness that I’m allowed the privilege of safety as soon as I fly back home. My concern is for the Ukrainian people during this time, and I hope to tell their story.
My experience of the war up to this point has been primarily of my experience in Kyiv. I have witnessed people responding to the daily brutal and senseless attacks on critical infrastructure with courage, creativity and resilience. But at the same time there are strange undercurrents of life just going on.
From my last trip, at the end of December, I have a poignant memory of sitting in my friend’s donut shop, Ponchyk Boy. (They often make themed donuts that address the war in a comical way.) We were unable to make a cup of tea because the electricity was out, the air raid sirens were blaring, much of the city was dark. The generators come on where they can, but people just keep going or, they sit in the dark – sometimes with a candle. Even when they have no heat the spirit lives strong.
CNN: Even locked in solitary confinement and in poor health, how much of a threat is Navalny to Russian President Vladimir Putin?
Rae: Navalny continues to be a threat to Putin’s autocracy. Even from maximum security prison, he is one of the most vocal anti-war activists in Russia today. His Anti-Corruption Foundation is constantly criticizing Putin’s leadership, ruling practices and the war. Navalny is fighting for a better, more prosperous, fair and democratic Russia.
Last week he posted a 15-point plan for post-war Russia. This plan presents a way forward. In a sense it is a manifesto. You can find this piece on his social media. It is like a breath of fresh air. This plan lays out Navalny’s political views and an alternate, more reasonable way forward for the Russian people and for the region. It is a plan that demonstrates respect for its neighbors and for Russian citizens. His very existence symbolizes hope.
by tyler | Dec 11, 2023 | CNN, opinions
(This article was published in March, 2023.)
Russia’s most famous dissident and critic of Vladimir Putin, Alexey Navalny, remains locked in solitary confinement at the maximum-security IK-6 penal colony at Melekhovo, in ailing health, and according to those closest to him, subjected to torture intended to break his spirit.
Despite Navalny’s suffering, Odessa Rae, one of the producers of Oscar-nominated documentary and CNN Film “Navalny,” has no doubt that the opposition politician is still finding ways to delight in his own dark – and disarming – sense of humor.
“I’m sure it’s his humor that is keeping his spirit alive,” she told CNN Opinion. “He has a particular penchant for dark humor, so he’s probably finding lots of great content in prison.”
Rae should know. In late 2020, she spent months filming with Navalny and his family in Germany’s Black Forest while he recovered from a near lethal dose of the deadly nerve agent Novichok delivered by an elite Russian intelligence unit (which the Kremlin denies).
Now, as fears for Navalny’s health grow, and a growing chorus of Russian lawyers and medical professionals call for an end to his “blatant torture” in prison, Rae answered questions from CNN Opinion’s Sheena McKenzie and Jane Carr, revealing new details about Navalny’s confinement – and reflected on his enduring source of strength.
CNN: You spent many months with Navalny in Germany while he was recovering from poisoning – what are your memories of that time and what did it reveal about him?
Odessa Rae: I will never forget the first time I met Alexey Navalny. Daniel Roher (director of “Navalny”), Christo Grozev (investigative journalist) and I drove into the night, through the Black Forest after a few weeks of trying to arrange a meeting with Navalny.
Our car was packed with camera gear. We had high hopes, but no official agreement to film had been made. Upon arriving, we were immediately charmed by Navalny’s welcoming energy, warm smile and the ease at which he initiates conversation. We easily let go of any intimidating preconceptions we had about him.
Once we started filming, we would ask, “Alexey, can we come film you running? Brushing your teeth? Waking up?” He sometimes thought our requests sounded absurd, but he was always willing and accepted us with a good spirit. We would end long days with his favorite local food: the Doner Kebab.
The security situation that he lived in was very clear from the first meeting. The team was very cautious about who they let in. Christo vouched for us but we had to earn their trust. We offered, “two months in, if you don’t like it, we will quit and give you all the footage.”
They agreed to start that way, but it came with endless questions and intensive background checks. They even wanted to look at our bank accounts to make sure we were not being paid by any government entity. Navalny lived in hiding.
I think we were accepted by his team for a few reasons. At the time we were just independent filmmakers, we were not yet associated with any major production company. We had no outside funding. We arrived in the Black Forest with the cost of the rental gear piled onto my credit card. We were willing to put our all into this film. We adapted to his security needs. No one knew where we were or what we were doing. All emails ceased, communication was done through encrypted messaging.
It took a lot of gymnastics to keep the footage safe. We spent long hours in the car, in winter conditions driving to various locations. Often we were met with Covid restrictions. My passwords became a three-step process with an external security key, which is how I continue to live. We traded stability for the privilege to spend unforgettable time getting to know an extraordinary human being.
CNN: Please describe Navalny’s current prison conditions and the physical and mental toll.
Rae: Navalny is in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. He has been there for the most part since last August. The main reason he is in solitary confinement is because of his vocal anti-war activism from his jail cell. He is one of Russia’s loudest voices against the war in Ukraine. He even uses his court time to protest the war.
They are torturing him in prison. They weaponize other inmates by putting an inmate in the infirmary until they become ill (contract an illness from other patients in the infirmary) and then put the sick inmate in Navalny’s cell.
Recently when Navalny became ill, almost certainly having contracted an illness from one of the weaponized inmates, even with a high fever, they restricted his water intake to only three glasses per day.
They introduced another inmate into the cell next to him who screams for hours and hours at night. He is not able to lie down during the day as his bed is chained up to the wall from 5 AM to 9 PM. They deprive him of family visits and of basic necessities like winter boots. He has lost close to 7 kilos (approximately 15 pounds) in the last couple months and has been repeatedly denied medical treatment.
CNN: Navalny recently tweeted: “I laugh at least thrice a day, even when I’m all alone in the cell.” How does he maintain his sense of humor amid the darkness? What gives him that strength?
Rae: Navalny has both an insatiable curiosity and a terrific sense of humor – both of which I’m sure serve him well in prison. We actually talked about this one day while driving him to a shoot.
We had a rigorous schedule, with many sleepless nights. Often I had the privilege of picking him up. I found Navalny to be a very open conversationalist. If he didn’t know something he would not hide it. On one of our drives he set out to pick my brain about life in Hollywood. “Tell me about the #MeToo movement.” Or: “Explain film production to me.”
On another long drive, we discussed his earlier experiences in prison. He told me that one of the greatest things he learned was to appreciate the small things, the tiny little things that we don’t normally think about on a daily basis – like brushing your teeth whenever you want, or touching a loved ones face, or a warm shower.
I can just imagine him applying this skill now in prison, looking at a prison guard and finding something entertaining about him or her, the sound of a bell, or receiving a funny letter. He has a way of connecting to people through humor. It was the way he often brought lightness to a tense situation.
We had a group chat that was filled with jokes. There was lots of banter about Canadian hockey versus Russian hockey. I’m sure it’s his humor that is keeping his spirit alive. He has a particular penchant for dark humor so he’s probably finding lots of great content in prison.
CNN: You’re working on another documentary about Ukraine. Can you tell us more about the project and what you’ve seen in Ukraine?
Rae: This project in Ukraine would not have been possible without my producing partners on the Navalny film, Diane Becker, Shane Boris and Melanie Miller. They came on board and helped me carry the weight of Navalny. They were the team that Daniel and I needed. We became close like a family, highlighting for me the necessity of teamwork.
At this time, the Ukraine documentary is still in the filming process. I’ve been following some individuals, operating within Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, who have been involved in crucial negotiations. What I have seen is horrific. And always at the back of my mind is the awareness that I’m allowed the privilege of safety as soon as I fly back home. My concern is for the Ukrainian people during this time, and I hope to tell their story.
My experience of the war up to this point has been primarily of my experience in Kyiv. I have witnessed people responding to the daily brutal and senseless attacks on critical infrastructure with courage, creativity and resilience. But at the same time there are strange undercurrents of life just going on.
From my last trip, at the end of December, I have a poignant memory of sitting in my friend’s donut shop, Ponchyk Boy. (They often make themed donuts that address the war in a comical way.) We were unable to make a cup of tea because the electricity was out, the air raid sirens were blaring, much of the city was dark. The generators come on where they can, but people just keep going or, they sit in the dark – sometimes with a candle. Even when they have no heat the spirit lives strong.
CNN: Even locked in solitary confinement and in poor health, how much of a threat is Navalny to Russian President Vladimir Putin?
Rae: Navalny continues to be a threat to Putin’s autocracy. Even from maximum security prison, he is one of the most vocal anti-war activists in Russia today. His Anti-Corruption Foundation is constantly criticizing Putin’s leadership, ruling practices and the war. Navalny is fighting for a better, more prosperous, fair and democratic Russia.
Last week he posted a 15-point plan for post-war Russia. This plan presents a way forward. In a sense it is a manifesto. You can find this piece on his social media. It is like a breath of fresh air. This plan lays out Navalny’s political views and an alternate, more reasonable way forward for the Russian people and for the region. It is a plan that demonstrates respect for its neighbors and for Russian citizens. His very existence symbolizes hope.
by tyler | May 22, 2023 | CNN, opinions
South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott made it official Monday, announcing his long anticipated candidacy for the White House. The lone Black Republican in the US Senate is gearing up for a campaign that elevates his deeply conservative values. But he’s making a decided break with some others in his party, offering something that was in short supply during the Trump years: optimism.
“I am living proof that America is the land of opportunity, and not a land of oppression,” he told a boisterous crowd in South Carolina.
“We have an unusual responsibility. We have the responsibility to prove that self-governance works,” Scott added.
If you glanced at the headlines, you might think that he was selling a warmed over form of former President Donald Trump’s “combative vision,” served with a side order of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ bitter culture war assaults.
That would be a mistake. Because if you actually listened to Scott’s speeches, you’d hear a very different pitch to voters.
Yes, Tim Scott is an unapologetic conservative. He is a person whose religious faith genuinely defines his personal journey and his politics. That may or may not be your policy preference. But his vision is fundamentally optimistic, a rebuke to grievance politics on the left and (implicitly) the right.
He is not fanning the flames of fear about “American carnage.” He is not wielding the American flag as a weapon to bludgeon people who look different than him. Amid a wave of strategically induced CRT panic, he is also not trying to whitewash American history to pretend it is an unadulterated story of perfection.
At a Lincoln Day dinner event in Iowa back in February, he told the story of how his beloved grandfather, born in 1921, was taught to step aside on the sidewalk to let a white man pass and never make eye contact. This was deep in the Jim Crow South. “So when I talk about our history, I’m not whitewashing it,” Scott said. But he added that his grandfather told him “you can be bitter – or you can be better. I chose better.”
As the only Black Republican US Senator, Scott sees his remarkable rise as evidence of American exceptionalism and our success in forming a more perfect union. And as inherently unique as it is, Scott’s story is not one that can simply be dismissed out of hand. But he is ready to have his patriotism attacked.
“For those of you on the left, you can call me a prop, you can call me a token, you can call me the N-word, you can question my Blackness, you can even call me ‘Uncle Tim.’ Just understand: Your words are no match for my evidence. The truth of my life disproves your lies.”
That’s a good line. It’s also a hard truth rooted in his personal experience. And he is unsparing in his belief that activists try to use our nation’s historic mistakes as a wedge to “bring more power and more resources to their progressive agenda.”
You can contest this all day long with stats and facts about systemic racism and its expression in everything from police abuse to housing. Scott might even agree when it comes to certain policies. But his place on the stage as a Black Republican US Senator preaching the need for national unity to achieve national greatness goes a long way toward repudiating the white identity politics that fueled much of Trump’s rise.
To be sure, he is still trying to appeal to a party that fell under Trump’s spell – and Scott does go too far with the play-to-the-base red meat for my taste at times.
For example, his talk of how left-wing Democrats are deliberately trying to “destroy America” fundamentally undercuts his overall rhetoric about the need to unite America. And he is part of the conservative crew that is dancing around the outright denunciation of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn an election on the basis of a lie – a stance that will look as cowardly in the future as it may look pragmatic now, from the perspective of someone running for president as a Republican.
But trying to slap a cynical Trump-derivative bumper sticker on Tim Scott does him a disservice. Because Scott’s optimistic pitch for possible presidential campaign is evidence that there is a lane outside of Trump, Trump Lite and Never Trump. It’s evidence of evolution beyond an obsession with identity politics and the grievance industrial complex. And that’s good for the future of Republican Party and good for the republic.
by tyler | Apr 17, 2023 | CNN, opinions
Tuesday is Tax Day in America, one of the most stressful days of the year, when many taxpayers will finally end their procrastination, file their federal returns, and hope for a refund from the IRS. But for many of the nation’s wealthiest, it’s just another Tuesday.
Tax Day isn’t just a filing deadline — it’s also an annual reminder that the ultra-rich exist in an entirely separate world when it comes to taxes. For us, the loopholes are bigger and the rates are sometimes lower. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer, with the wealth of billionaires in particular growing by more than $1.5 trillion over the last few years.
This status quo is unfair, but even more importantly, it’s unsustainable. Such high levels of inequality are pushing our economy and our democracy to their breaking points. That’s why we should examine how we can set our country up for long-term stability and prosperity. And we should start by ensuring that the ultra-rich pay more of what they owe the country that made their success possible.
There are three changes to the tax code that would help us do just that:
Right now, the US tax system values money over sweat. If you work hard for your money instead of earning it passively, you’re essentially penalized for it. People who earn a salary pay significantly higher tax rates on their income than wealthy investors who passively earn capital gains income.
Inheriting money is an even better deal. Thanks to former president Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, the first $12.92 million (or $25.84 million for a married couple) is completely exempt from any estate tax, and the stepped-up basis loophole allows wealthy families to permanently erase millions in capital gains taxes by resetting the market value of those assets to their value at the time of the original owner’s death. With this, it becomes relatively simple for the rich to inherit tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars, and pay almost nothing in taxes. Someone working for that money, on the other hand, would pay over a third of it in federal income taxes.
Why do we have a tax code that says working people should be taxed more than wealthy investors and those who got rich just by virtue of being born into the right family? At the end of the day, money is money, whether you worked for it or whether you inherited it. As an heiress and an investor, we should not be paying lower tax rates than people who earn their money from working.
It’s time for the tax code to treat all income equally by taxing all capital gains over $1 million at the same rates as ordinary income, and replacing our loophole-ridden estate tax with a simpler inheritance tax that treats inherited wealth as income.
We can’t just focus on income, however, because many of the richest Americans earn basically no taxable income of any kind in a typical year. Capital gains are only taxed when assets are sold, so instead of selling them, the ultra-rich use their assets as collateral to borrow vast sums of money at extremely low interest rates to live on, and then declare little or even negative “income” on their tax forms. This “Buy, Borrow, Die” strategy is a major reason billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate over recent years than working-class families.
By rethinking what is taxable, we can get access to the trillions of dollars of billionaire wealth that is untouchable under our current tax structure. That’s why President Biden has proposed the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, which would tax the unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest households and why others have proposed wealth taxes on billionaires.
Finally, one of the most straightforward changes needed is to simply tax the extremely rich more than the merely rich. Our income tax caps out at a top rate of 37% for any income over $578,125 (or $693,750 for married couples). No matter how much more someone makes, they’ll never pay more than 37% in federal income taxes.
While someone earning $600,000 is certainly making enough to live a very comfortable life, they’re in a different world than someone making $600 million a year. In order to reflect the real differences between the rich and the ultra-rich, we need to return to the top rates we had through the most prosperous decades of the 20th century and add significantly more tax brackets. They should reach up to 90% for people making more than $100 million a year.
These three changes certainly won’t fix all our country’s problems on their own, but they would go a long way in stopping the steady flow of our country’s wealth toward a smaller and smaller group of people, a change that would make both our democracy and our economy more stable. The tax code can be a powerful tool for both social and economic change. We just need to use it more effectively.
