Add caption



There are two kinds of reformism. One has no intention of bringing about revolutionary change – indeed it may use reforms to oppose such change.

The other kind cherishes the mistaken belief that successful reforms will somehow prepare the ground for revolution. Reforms are seen as necessary first steps on the long road to eventual revolution.



The first type can be summarised thus:

Political parties have already become rival groups of professional politicians with virtually identical policies and certainly identical practices, offering themselves as the best managers of the system. So it would mean that politics would be reduced to pressure group politics as different sections of the population tried to persuade governments—whichever the party in power—to make changes in their particular sectional interest or, in the case of campaigning charities, of the disadvantaged group they have chosen to champion. Political action would consist of lobbying, backed up from time to time by direct action, for reforms in the sectional interest of some group.

Politicians’ logic prevails:



1. Capitalism is terrible.



2. We must do something.



3. Reforms are something.



4. Therefore we must enact reforms.



The second type of reformist the “revolutionary reformist” has certain assumptions which seem to be the following:-



1. The working class has a reformist consciousness.



2. It is the duty of the Revolutionary Party to be where the masses are.



3. Therefore, to be with the mass of the working class, we must advocate reforms.



Further:



1. Winning reformist battles will give the working class confidence.



2. So that, therefore, they will go on to have a socialist revolution.



And just how does the jump from reform-mindedness to socialist consciousness happen? There are three basic models for how this may come about:



1. The working class will learn from its struggles, and will eventually come to realise that assuming power is the only way to meet its ends.



2. That the working class will realise, through the failure of reforms to meet its needs, the futility of reformism and capitalism, and will overthrow it.



3. That the working class will come to trust the Party that leads them to victory, and come a social crisis they will follow it to revolution.



The World Socialist Party rejects the above political strategy and offers its no compromise, no minimum programme alternative .



Fighting for reforms is to fail in the duty of socialists to demystify and dispel capitalist ideology. This is important to note: capitalism is in the end an ideology; everything it does, all of its workings, all of it is a human product, constructed in the minds of humans, and obeyed because it presents itself as the natural law, as the real world, and the realm of the possible.For so-called socialists to fight for reforms then is to fail as socialists, to become enmeshed within the working of capitalism.



The World Socialist Party does not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers’ lives lest they dampen their revolutionary ardour. Nor, because it thinks that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms.

But because our continued existence as propertyless wage slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms. Our objection to reformism is that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the ongoing struggle.



Socialists make a choice. We choose to use our time and limited funds to work to eliminate the cause of the problems. One can pick any problem and often one can find that real improvements have taken place, usually after a very long period of agitation. Rarely, if ever, has the problem disappeared, and usually other related problems have cropped up to fill the vacuum of destruction or suffering left by the “solution”.



We want the majority in society to take over and run the means of production in the interest of all. However, at the moment these are in the hands of a minority of the population whose ownership and control of them is backed up-and, when necessary, enforced-by the State and its repressive forces. The State stands as an obstacle between the useful majority and the means of production because it is at present controlled by the minority owning class. They control the State, not by some conspiracy, but with the consent or acquiescence of the majority of the population, a consent which expresses itself in everyday attitudes towards rich people, leaders, nationalism, money, etc. and, at election times, in voting for parties which support class ownership. In fact it is such majority support expressed through elections that gives their control of the State legitimacy.



In other words, the minority rule with the assent of the majority, which gives them political control. The first step towards taking over the means of production, therefore, must be to take over control of the State, and the easiest way to do this is via elections.



But elections are merely a technique, a method. The most important precondition to taking political control out of the hands of the owning class is that the majority are no longer prepared to be ruled and exploited by a minority; they must withdraw their consent to capitalism and class rule-they must want and understand a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control.



The plain fact is that you can’t “Smash the State” while it still enjoys majority support – and when those who control it no longer enjoy majority support there is no need to try to “smash” it because the majority can use the power of their numbers to take control of it via the ballot box, so that it is no longer used to uphold class ownership.



To do so they will need to organise politically, into a political party, a socialist party. This is what we advocate.



The WSPUS doesn’t suffer from delusions of grandeur so we don’t necessary claim that we are that party. What we are talking about is not a small educational and propagandist group which we are presently, but a mass party that has yet to emerge.

It is such a party that will take political control via the ballot box, but since it will in effect be the useful majority organised democratically and politically for socialism it is the useful majority, not the party as such as something separate from that majority, that carries out the socialist transformation of society.

They neutralise the state and its repressive forces – there is no question of forming a government – and then proceed to take over the means of production for which they will also have organised themselves at their places of work.

This done, the repressive state is disbanded and its remaining administrative and service features, re-organised on a democratic basis, and are merged with the organisations which the majority will have formed to take over and run production (the workers councils and industrial unions, the co-operatives, the neighbourhood and community organisations), to form the democratic administrative structure of the state-free society of common ownership that socialism will be.



When the time comes the socialist majority will use the ballot box since it will be the obvious thing to do, and nobody will be able to prevent them or persuade them not to.

The World Socialist Party does not deny that certain reforms won by the working class have helped to improve our general living and working conditions. Indeed, there is little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as “successful”.

There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. Indeed, how could a party composed of workers and committed to the working-class interest be opposed to any measure that improved, however marginally and temporarily, conditions for workers – but our opposition is to reformism, in the sense of a policy of actively seeking reforms.

However, in this regard we also recognise that such “successes” have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has ameliorated the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely.



Reformism means POLITICAL action or pressure put on the state to modify the economic behaviour of capitalism . For example, voting for the Democratic Party to introduce a $15 minimum wage is reformist; joining your local BLM movement is not. There is no attempt to influence the state to introduce reforms therefore it is not reformist – anymore than joining a trade union is “reformist”. Another example could be advocating the abolition of the death penalty which would not be reformist .



What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be made palatable with the right reforms, By that, we mean that we oppose those organisations that promise to deliver a program of reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order that the organisation dishing out the promises can gain a position of power.

Such groups, especially those of the left-wing, often have real aims quite different to the reform programme they peddle. In this, they are being as dishonest as any other politician, from the left or right. The ultimate result of this is disillusionment with the possibility of radical change.



On the other hand, a concession wrung from the capitalists without compensation, such as a reduction of the working day with no loss of daily pay, is a triumph.



The World Socialist Party has always drawn a distinction between reformism and trade-unionism (economic action,against employers, over the price and conditions of sale of labour power). We oppose the former (even if we don’t necessarily oppose all reform measures as such) and support the latter as long as it is one sound lines (democratically organised, recognising that employers are the class enemy, etc).

As socialists, we see in this something that is to the good in the class struggle. These efforts of the workers to combine, either to resist the onslaughts of the master class, or to gain whatever they can, must meet with the support of all workers who understand their class position.The struggle on the economic field must be looked to and encouraged. The particular form of economic organisation through which the struggle is conducted is one which the circumstances of the struggle must mainly determine. The chief thing is to maintain the struggle as long as capitalism lasts.(Things get complicated when trade-unions start getting involved in reformist political action, but then our members in the unions oppose such actions as unsound.)



The World Socialist Party wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression. Whilst we avoid any association with parties or political groups seeking to administer capitalism we emphasise that freedom of movement and expression, the freedom to organise in trade unions, to organise politically and to participate in elections, are of great importance to all workers and are vital to the success of the socialist movement.



In other words, although individual reforms may be worthy of support, the political strategy of reformism — promising to win reforms on the behalf of others — is a roundabout that leads nowhere. Some improvements are made and some problems are alleviated. Yet new kinds of problems arise which require addressing in a society that is forever changing. Or of defending the status quo against some ‘anti-reform’ when gains are being undermined. For the reformer’s work is never done under capitalism.



Another factor to be considered is that organisations that have a commitment to socialism but who also advocate a reform programme were in practice swamped by people who were attracted by their reforms rather than their supposed commitment to abolishing capitalism. In these circumstances,and those those who viewed reforms as a stepping-stone to socialism were themselves swamped by people for whom reforms were simply an end in themselves, palliating the worst excesses of the system.



In 1890 William Morris wrote an essay ‘Where are we now?’, as he left the Socialist League and looked back over his time in that organisation and the Social Democratic Federation. He saw two ‘methods of impatience’, as he termed them.

One was futile riot or revolt, which could be easily put down. – The armed struggle in modern terms .

The other was, to use the then-popular label, ‘palliation’, what we would now call reformism.



Morris (and the WSPUS) resolutely opposed both, since they would be carried out by people who did not know what socialism was and so would not know what to do next, even if their efforts were successful on their own terms. Instead he advocated propagating socialist ideas:



“Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible.”



As Sinn Fein was described as the political wing of the IRA, some would describe ourselves as the political wing of the anarchist movement.

 A new analysis by the Health Foundation think tank says poorer areas of England are being less well served by GPs who are struggling to cope with shortages of doctors and less funding per patient than those in wealthier areas. People living in the most-deprived communities are less likely to have a GP appointment, with nurses substituting for doctors in some areas. The Health Foundation added: “While practices in the most-deprived areas have fewer GPs, they have more practice nurses compared to the more affluent areas, which could be resulting in unplanned substitution of nurses for doctors to meet demand for appointments.”

Experts at the Health Foundation estimated that GPs in poorer areas received about 7 per cent less money per patient than less-deprived parts of the country once the increased workload and need of patients in poorer areas were factored in. Once the demand from patients living in poorer areas was taken into account, practices were found to receive about £10 less funding per patient than those serving less-deprived populations.

Doctors working in the most-deprived communities will on average be responsible for the care of almost 10 per cent more patients than a GP serving patients in more affluent areas, the analysis found.  

For every 100,000 people, there were 45 GPs serving the most-deprived areas, compared with almost 49 in the least-deprived areas. In addition, a disproportionate number of GPs aged 65 or older are working in the most-deprived areas, which could make inequalities worse as they leave their roles.

Many practices in the most-deprived areas are less equipped to provide high-quality care compared with practices in the least-deprived areas, the Health Foundation said in its report. Practices were also found to be less likely to perform well in Care Quality Commission inspections and got lower patient-satisfaction scores.  

The report said: “People who live in more socio-economically deprived areas of England are less likely to see a GP when they have an appointment compared to people living in more affluent areas. They are also less likely to report being very satisfied with the overall standard of care at their practice, and on some measures, the care they do receive is likely to be of a lower quality.  This impacts individuals (whose health needs may go unmet) and the wider health care system – with rates of emergency hospital admissions higher among both children and adults living in areas of high deprivation. The Covid-19 pandemic is likely to have increased these inequities further.”

Dr Rebecca Fisher, senior policy fellow at the Health Foundation and a practising GP, said: “People living in poorer areas have greater healthcare needs, but GP practices serving our most deprived communities are underfunded and under-doctored. If this government is serious about tackling health inequalities it has to address inequalities of provision in general practice – the front door of the NHS. That means making sure that much-needed extra GPs work in under-doctored areas, and reviewing funding for general practice to make sure that money is being allocated in proportion with need.”

Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “We had a desperate shortage of GPs, even before the pandemic, and the experiences over the past six months have only strengthened our case for significant funding to increase and sustain the GP workforce.

“Unfortunately, a decade of under-investment in general practice means patients often face a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing our services. This should not be the case and all patients should have access to the best possible GP care, regardless of their circumstances or where they live.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gps-nhs-england-health-foundation-patients-b598324.html

 Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the UK’s richest person  with an estimated £17.5bn fortune and high-profile Brexiter, has quit Britain for tax-free Monaco.

It has been estimated that the move will save him £4bn in tax payments.

Before he left for Monaco, Ratcliffe was the UK’s third-highest individual taxpayer, paying £110m to the exchequer in 2017-18.

Ratcliffe, who owns 60% of Ineos, has seen his personal fortune increase from an estimated £9.5bn in January 2019 to £17.5bn today. That estimated wealth has increased by £1.25bn so far this year alone, despite the coronavirus pandemic.

Other rich Britons who have moved to Monaco include the Topshop boss Sir Philip Green and his wife Tina; the property billionaires Simon and David Reuben and John Hargreaves, the founder and chairman of Matalan.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/25/sir-jim-ratcliffe-uks-richest-person-moves-to-tax-free-monaco-brexit-ineos-domicile

 Trump was the reaction by Republicans and Democrats to a deep malaise in U.S. society which caused a turn to the right. There was economic stagnation, increased inequality, and pressures on real profits (as opposed to financial speculation and over–valuation of the stock market). A significant section of the American people responded to genuine grievances of growing poverty and inequality, de-industrialization, loss of jobs and rural recession — but false and misleading politics directed the blame onto African-Americans, migrants, and the “liberal elite” in Washington and the demagogues whipped up these people’s emotions and despair into a frenzy. Some Trump voters were attracted to his racism and nativism. The only difference with Biden and is that he is presenting a respectable front and Trump has not. African-Americans and Hispanics would never vote for Trump, some will reluctantly opt for Biden, but a great number will sit this election out. Biden’s electioneering remains rhetoric about shared sacrifice and the virtues of bipartisanship. As a senator and as V-P he failed to defend, and in reality undermined, working-class interests. 

For decades the liberals and progressives have been politically opposing the greater evil by supporting the lesser evil but overall the greater evil has gotten more evil, and so has the lesser evil. As the Republican Party moved further to the right the Democratic Party shifted to where the Republicans used to be. Every election, working people vote for the Democrats and every election the Republicans get worse and worse, and the Democrats also get worse. The Justice Democrats, the DSA and the Sanders supporters have no power. The party remains ruled by the corporate shills of Wall St. The politics of “lesser–evilism” has failed to work. The Biden alternative remains wishy-washy and inadequate. We cannot beat the greater evil by relying on the lesser evil. 

What the proponents of lesser evilism fail to recognize is that the Democratic Party is not a neutral organization. It is an instrument of the ruling class. For generations now it has served to draw movements in to the swamp of reformism. Biden promises change but so do all presidents. They promise the American people that if elected they will make the country stronger and create conditions that will make our lives better. As soon they are in the White House they suffer amnesia and carry on serving the interests of the corporations.

The two-party system has never worked for the average American. Since the Democrats and Republicans have proven they can’t be trusted; then for whom should American workers vote on November’s election day? There is an option of voting for a third party, the Libertarians or the Green Party. Do these other parties truly offer an alternative? In essence, they merely mirror the Republicans and the Democrats. We should bury once and for all the notions of supporting a lesser evil as a viable alternative.

The World Socialist Party’s goal is an autonomous working class movement independent of the capitalist class and their political lackeys. Instead of comparing the Democrats to the Republicans, we propose a different standard: who will represent and act in the interests of the working class as a whole? Our goal is not to persuade individuals to not vote but to raise the idea of an independent mass socialist party. The originally Marxist social democratic parties had in addition to the “maximum” program of socialism what they called a “minimum program” of immediate reforms to capitalism. What happened is that they attracted votes on the basis of their minimum, not their maximum, program, i.e. reformist votes, and so became the prisoners of these voters. In parliament, and later in office, they found themselves with no freedom of action other than to compromise with capitalism. Had they been the mandated delegates of those who voted for them (rather than leaders) this could be expressed by saying that they had no mandate for socialism, only to try to reform capitalism. It was not a case of being corrupted by the mere fact of going into national parliaments but was due to the basis on which they went there and how this restricted what they could do. In short, it is not power as such that corrupts. It is power obtained on the basis of followers voting for leaders to implement reforms that, if you want to put it that way, “corrupts”. The WSPUS advocates only socialism and nothing but (the so-called “maximum program”.)

The advocates of lesser evilism deflect attention away from an understanding of how the capitalist system works and the route causes of the problems it creates. They stand in opposition to the solution and the abolition of the system of wage slavery itself. They are as much a part of the problem as the capitalists themselves who as ever gratefully accommodate the reformists as part of the political system, the acceptable face of wage slavery and capitalism.

Many liberals and progressives see Trump as the main problem facing the U.S. Therefore their focus is on defeating him in the November election. Their hope for salvation is a Biden and a Democratic Party presidency. The World Socialist Party disagree and view Trump as the culmination of years of political and economic development,  related to similar politics in other countries. The growth of right-wing, nationalist, “populism” is world-wide. The replacement of Trump by the Establishment-endorsed Biden will not be the dawning of a new day.

For certain, Trump is devoid of a conscience or of empathy for others, cruel and callous, completely self-centered, lacking in integrity or honor, who breaks laws and ignores the norms of basic decency and who punishes his enemies and sells out his friends without a qualm. He is a sexist, racist and a xenophobe. As a result of all this, most of the capitalist class do not support Trump and would prefer Biden. Sure,  they loved his tax cuts for the rich and they liked his attacks on Obamacare. They delighted in his deregulation, particularly of all those restrictive regulatory rules on the environment. But Wall St are also pleased that they possess a conservative, pro-business, alternative to Trump, who they believe won’t risk killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. Many working people have have real grievances and seek to have them addressed. Trump won’t deliver the solutions so the media says Biden will. For Big Business the program of tax cuts and deregulation will continue, but perhaps not as so brazenly and blatantly.

A little bit of history shows that the repeated defeats of right-wing presidents have not resulted in progressive administrations. Instead, the Democrats have shifted to the right and occupied the space once taken by the Republicans. If voters get fed up with one party, they turn to the other, basing their views on the personality of the individual rather than at what programs they propose. 

 We can expect the liberals, progressives, and activists on the left of the Democratic Party to quickly be disappointed with a President Biden, who will stay well within the limits of capitalism. He cannot stop climate change or improve the living conditions of working people. This disappointment will lead to a bigger opposition, we are told but that opposition will end up being channelled into some safe criticizm to wither and die.

 The right to vote is seen as a necessary prerequisite for freedom across the world. People have fought and died for the right to vote in elections. So why is the World Socialist Party advocating abstention in November? We aren’t  against voting, as are those who call themselves anarchists. In fact we are for democracy. What we are against is a system that offers candidates, selected for us, and with policies chosen for us, neither being in the interests of us. Governments are little more than committees for managing the affairs of capitalism. It’s not enough to blame individual politicians elected to office for failing us and arguing that we need to elect better politicians. It is the system that is at fault. Capitalism is the problem. The good intentions and character of the candidates are irrelevant. By making the principled choice not to participate in the election, we open up an opportunity for our fellow-workers to question the acceptance of the status quo. During this election period where there are more people talking about politics, the World Socialist Party will try to get our ideas across about the nature of the current economic system, how elected politicians are controlled and shaped by the State, and how the State acts to protect capitalism.

 The home secretary, Priti Patel, has been accused of inciting racial hatred.

Patel, in a Zoom meeting with Jewish leaders, said she was determined to stamp out the “criminality that takes place and that has happened through Traveller communities and unauthorised encampments”. She said, “We have seen criminality, violence taking place. We saw one particular Traveller criminal – I can’t go into the details of this – but, basically, we saw a police officer that was effectively murdered through a robbery that took place by a Traveller family,” she said.

Lord Woolley, condemned the comments as “wrong, reckless and at worst dangerous, because this type of language easily stirs up racial hatred”. Woolley, who was adviser to Theresa May’s Racial Disparity Unit, told The Independent that the crime rate among Travellers was “lower than the national average”.

“So to demonise a whole community as the home secretary has done is simply wrong, reckless and at worst dangerous, because this type of language easily stirs up racial hatred. This is a community which, along with the Roma community, is perhaps the most abused and demonised in society and which most needs respect and protection under the law. I hope that, on reflection, the home secretary will see that this potentially stirs up racial hatred and will be humble enough to apologise.”

80 leading academics, race equality organisations, and politicians  have signed a letter to  Patel, urging her to retract her “hate speech”. The protest letter reads: “We consider your comments during this meeting to constitute hate speech as it brands an entire ethnic group as criminal and violent. You have a duty as a public figure to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and encourage good relations between all groups.” It adds: “We call for an immediate retraction of these comments, and a public apology made directly to all Traveller, Gypsy and Roma people.”

The killing, and the teenagers’ lack of remorse, was condemned by leading members of the Traveller community, but immediately provoked fears that it was being exploited to stir up longstanding prejudices.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-pc-andrew-harper-death-racial-hatred-irish-travellers-b596251.html

You young ones will tell us when you get older,

You wish you’d seen clearer, you wish you’d been bolder.

Received opinion’s not what it seemed,

Now you know it’s not what you dreamed.

Study long, work hard and get a good job Get into the system, don’t be a slob. Students? No problem, get a loan for your fees, Pay us back later, take as long as you please.

Into the workforce, at last you’ve got money But at the end of the month it doesn’t seem funny With 2.4 children, mortgage and car You worked such long hours but it didn’t go far.

Some of you enrolled for training schemes, Improved your skills, enlarged your dreams. Then you found the skills weren’t needed Here, at home – to overseas the jobs were ceded.

In the majority world where life is cheap Production’s a doddle and profits are steep, No cares about pensions; health and safety is crude, Fourteen hours a day keep the workforce subdued.

You joined the union, showed your grit, Even that wasn’t the end of it. Agreements signed were soon annulled, The union’s teeth had all been pulled.

“Make Poverty History” became the new call, By 2010 we could end it all If we all pulled together to finish the trouble. In fact the same year we saw poverty double!

“Democracy’s the thing, let’s spread it worldwide” With scant regard for the numbers who’d died Worldwide in previous wars of attrition. Is there really no end to imperial ambition?

Pit man against man and sect against sect, No regard for the numbers of lives that are wrecked If your name is Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Blair. Makes no difference; in politics, nothing is fair.

The nations’ police forces – for public protection! –Have been used more and more for casual selection Of ordinary folk seeking simply a voice For issues not covered by brute market force.

It’s clear what you young ones need now, not later, Is exposure to values which are somewhat greater, Like production for use and access for all, No second-class citizens with backs to the wall.

Freedom in all things, isn’t that what you want?

Freedom to say, do and go where you want?

Give us a call or look on the net

The Socialist Party’s the name, check out what you’ll get –

 JanetS

 Oliver Healey writes in flowery terms (Letters, September 10).

Capitalism is not the product of a financial conspiracy, and workers have always supported and voted for the continuation of capitalism. By contrast, communists such as Karl Marx sought capitalism’s overthrow, and also rejected the reformist half-measures of his contemporary, Eduard Bernstein. So much so, the Communist manifesto concluded – in what Healey might consider oppositional and confrontational terms – that the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains; they have a world to win. This means defending tariffs and high wages are protecting the crumbs when Marxists want to capture the whole bakery.

In the here and now, collective organising can achieve better conditions, but it will be workers organising for themselves, not tariffs (or even particularly Marxists), let alone the coercing of foreign states. Ruling classes of imagined communities of ‘nations’ (all existing states, which are sort of a monopoly themselves) are part of the problem.

Jon D White

email

https://www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1316/letters/

 Kentucky’s climate is changing quickly. The Bluegrass State is the ninth most threatened state in the country by long-term climate change impacts, according to a recent study  based on data from Climate Central. That puts it ahead of even California, where wildfires recently have wreaked havoc. Erratic weather, exceptional heat, drought, wildfires and flooding all threaten Kentucky.

Kentucky is a microcosm of the nation’s climate dilemma: the effects of the climate crisis are clear here, but legacy interests and the forces of change are at an impasse. “There’s a lag between where we need to be and where we’re at right now,” said Lane Boldman, who directs the Kentucky Conservation Committee, a nonprofit environmental policy group. “And there really isn’t a lot of time.”

 According to a study this month by Yale and George Mason universities, Kentucky is one of only four states in the country where a majority of adults do not believe global warming is caused by humans.

Coal industry ties run deep, however, and, for many, talk of change is anathema. The state legislature has mostly avoided the climate issue. And US Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, by far the state’s best-known politician, has been a dedicated opponent of climate action. McConnell has accepted more than $3m from the coal, oil and gas industries over the course of his career. Critics say he’s returned the favor with handouts – tax breaks and regulatory cuts – to keep the dying industry aloft. In 2017, McConnell joined the Trump administration in urging America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate Agreement. In 2019, he engineered what he admitted was “a show vote” intended to kill the Green New Deal. Meanwhile, McConnell sits on the Senate agriculture committee but has seemed indifferent to how climate change threatens Kentucky’s sizable agricultural sector.

Similar apathy reigns in the state legislature, where Republicans hold a lock on both houses. The chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy committee, Jim Gooch, for example, told Louisville’s WFPL radio station recently that the science on climate change remains unsettled. Other legislators seem still beholden to the coal industry, reform advocates say, and to utility companies.

The coal industry employed some 38,000 Kentuckians when McConnell took office in 1985; it’s below 4,000 today. Workers in the mountainous eastern part of the state have found themselves laid off and uncompensated for their work by coal bosses. And deregulation has led to one of the worst black lung epidemics on record. Eastern Kentucky counties are among the poorest in the nation, with poverty rates around 40%. The water in some of those counties is either undrinkable or unaffordable.

Three of the five wettest years on record in the state have been in the last decade, and this summer saw the most rain of any two-month period on record going back to 1895. More rain can boost crops, but in many parts of Kentucky rain now comes in unhelpful torrents. In both the eastern mountains and urban areas, excessive rain has contributed to severe and frequent flooding. In Louisville, this year, rain has turned neighborhoods into swamps and devastated businesses. The precipitation uptick is “very much consistent” with scientific projections for how climate change will play out in the state, Stuart Foster, Kentucky’s state climatologist, said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/24/kentuckys-climate-is-suffering-can-the-state-slip-the-industry-ties-that-prevent-change

Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, has the highest-rated show on the network. 

Carlson was recently taken to court for defamation of character by Karen McDougal who was paid for her silence about an affair she said she had with Donald Trump. To defend Carlson Fox News made a damning admission. Tucker Carlson cannot be trusted.

 Federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found: 

“This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”…Fox persuasively argues…that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.”

Fox TV concedes that this number one show presenter cannot be reasonably expected to be taken seriously and “reasonable” viewers will be skeptical that his claims are not “actual facts.”

The fact is, Carlson is a liar, and he often intentionally lies to his audience so to get them to buy into his biased ideological view of the world.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/fox-news-was-forced-to-make-a-damning-admission-in-a-tucker-carlson-lawsuit/