Saturday, November 30, 2024
The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win
The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win
“Our research shows that political breakdown, from the Roman Empire to the Russian revolution, follows a clear pattern: workers’ wages stagnate, while elites multiply
In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail. Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond. That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.
The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years. We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown. Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.
So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.
To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries. For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality. For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low.
That social contract began to break down in the late 1970s. The power of unions was undermined, and taxes on the wealthy cut back. Typical workers’ wages, which had previously increased in tandem with overall economic growth, started to lag behind. Inflation-adjusted wages stagnated and at times decreased. The result was a decline in many aspects of quality of life for the majority of Americans. One shocking way this became evident was in changes to the average life expectancy, which stalled and even went into reverse (and this started well before the Covid pandemic). That’s what we term “popular immiseration”.
With the incomes of workers effectively stuck, the fruits of economic growth were reaped by the elites instead. A perverse “wealth pump” came into being, siphoning money from the poor and channelling it to the rich. The Great Compression reversed itself. In many ways, the last four decades call to mind what happened in the United States between 1870 and 1900 – the time of railroad fortunes and robber barons. If the postwar period was a golden age of broad-based prosperity, after 1980 we could be said to have entered a Second Gilded Age.
Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation. A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.
By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.
Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase. As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia. In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system. As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines. The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within.
One result of all this political dysfunction is an inability to agree on how the federal budget should be balanced. Together with the loss of trust and legitimacy, that accelerates the breakdown of state capacity. It’s notable that a collapse in state finances is often the triggering event for a revolution: this is what happened in France before 1789 and in the runup to the English civil war.
How does this landscape translate to party politics? The American ruling class, as it has evolved since the end of the civil war in 1865, is basically a coalition of the top wealth holders (the proverbial 1%) and a highly educated or “credentialed” class of professionals and graduates (whom we might call the 10%). A decade ago, the Republicans were the party of the 1%, while the Democrats were the party of the 10%. Since then, they have both changed out of all recognition.
The recasting of the Republican party began with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in 2016. He was typical of political entrepreneurs in history who have channelled popular discontent to propel themselves to power (one example is Tiberius Gracchus, who founded the populist party in late Republican Rome). Not all of his initiatives went against the interests of the ruling class – for example, he succeeded in making the tax code more regressive. But many did, including his policies on immigration (economic elites tend to favour open immigration as it suppresses wages); a rejection of traditional Republican free-market orthodoxy in favour of industrial policy; a scepticism of Nato and a professed unwillingness to start new conflicts abroad.
It seemed to some as though the revolution had been squashed when a quintessentially establishment figure, Joe Biden, defeated Trump in 2020. By 2024 the Democrats had essentially become the party of the ruling class – of the 10% and of the 1%, having tamed its own populist wing (led by the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders). This realignment was signalled by Kamala Harris massively outspending Trump this election cycle, as well as mainstream Republicans, such as Liz and Dick Cheney, or neocons such as Bill Kristol, supporting the Harris ticket.
The GOP, in the meantime, has transformed itself into a truly revolutionary party: one that represents working people (according to its leaders) or a radical rightwing agenda (according to its detractors). In the process, it has largely purged itself of traditional Republicans.
Trump was clearly the chief agent of this change. But while the mainstream media and politicians obsess over him, it is important to recognise that he is now merely the tip of the iceberg: a diverse group of counter-elites has coalesced around the Trump ticket. Some of them, such as JD Vance, had meteoric rises through the Republican ranks. Some, such as Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, defected from the Democrats. Others include tycoons such as Musk, or media figures, such as Joe Rogan, perhaps the most influential American podcaster. The latter was once a supporter of the populist wing of the Democratic party (and Bernie Sanders in particular).
The main point here is that in 2024, the Democrats, having morphed into the party of the ruling class, had to contend not only with the tide of popular discontent but also a revolt of the counter-elites. As such, it finds itself in a predicament that has recurred thousands of times in human history, and there are two ways things play out from here.
One is with the overthrow of established elites, as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions. The other is with the ruling elites backing a rebalancing of the social system – most importantly, shutting down the wealth pump and reversing popular immiseration and elite overproduction. It happened about a century ago with the New Deal. There’s also a parallel in the Chartist period (1838–1857), when Great Britain was the only European great power to avoid the wave of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848, via major reform. But the US has so far failed to learn the historical lessons.
What comes next? The electoral defeat on 5 November represents one battle in an ongoing revolutionary war. The triumphant counter-elites want to replace their counterparts – what they sometimes call the “deep state” – entirely. But history shows that success in achieving such goals is far from assured. Their opponents are pretty well entrenched in the bureaucracy and can effectively resist change. Ideological and personal tensions in the winning coalition may result in it breaking apart (as they say, revolutions devour their children). Most importantly, the challenges facing the new Trump administration are of the particularly intractable kind. What is their plan for tackling the exploding federal budget deficit? How are they going to shut down the wealth pump? And what will the Democrats’ response be? Will their platform for 2028 include a new New Deal, a commitment to major social reform?
One thing is clear: whatever the choices and actions of the contending parties, they will not lead to an immediate resolution. Popular discontent in the US has been building up for more than four decades. Many years of real prosperity would be needed to persuade the public that the country is back on the right track. So, for now, we can expect a lasting age of discord. Let’s hope that it won’t spill over into a hot civil war.
Opinion Democrats need ‘shortcuts’ to reach low-information voters
Opinion Democrats need ‘shortcuts’ to reach low-information voters
“You’re reading Jennifer Rubin’s subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
This week, I look at low-information voters, pick the distinguished person of the week and share my infatuation with one sports league.
What caught my eye
President-elect Donald Trump’s margin of victory was greatest among those who consume little or no news. “Americans with less formal education tend to rely more on friends and family for election information, while those with higher education and income are more likely to prefer the news media,” one report found.
Other studies and literature have confirmed the prevalence of low-information(also sometimes categorized as “ignorant” or “disengaged” voters) who know shockingly little about government, policy and their fellow Americans (e.g., wildly overestimating the size of some groups, assessing the state of the economy, understanding basic facts about the Constitution).
Moreover, political reporters and pundits — who cannot fathom someone might never read a newspaper or know the three branches of government — consistently overestimate voters’ knowledge. They nag politicians (as they did with Vice President Kamala Harris) to provide reams of policy detail that these voters never hear — or care to learn about. Pundits’ pleas were especially misplaced considering Harris needed to appeal to the very voters whose policy knowledge and interest was the lowest.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
The problem is getting worse over time, as the Washington Monthly pointed out in March:
The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.
We shouldn’t be surprised when most Americans can’t name a Supreme Court justice or when they’re shocked to learn that Obamacare is the same thing as the Affordable Care Act, upon which they rely. (One wonders what is the point of asking such voters their view on policy issues — or which candidate does better on handling an issue — when they do not follow political news.)
This does not mean that voters don’t learn about candidates during the campaign or cannot be stirred on issues near and dear to them. After all, when seniors hear about potential cuts in Medicare or Social Security, you hear a chorus of protests.
Simply put, only a certain stratum of Americans prioritize learning about politics. That poses a problem for Democrats who love to flash their policy credentials and often rely on substantive arguments (e.g., tariffs are effectively the same as a sales tax). Democrats are missing a large and increasingly critical segment of voters.
There is a vast range of literature about how voters who know little about the issues develop “shortcuts” to identify candidates. They take clues such as the politicians’ profession (e.g., business mogul), party image (Democrats defend voting rights) and viral moments (Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone!”) to decide who they prefer.
Democrats might pine for a country of high-information voters fostered by civics education and responsible social media platforms that elevate truthful policy statements. However, they shouldn’t hold their breath. Even if those efforts might make a difference at the margins (more likely improving the acuity of already-informed voters), the mass of low-information voters will remain happily oblivious to policy and political details.
Still, Democrats can do a much better job of reaching less politically engaged voters. For starters, they need to reduce and simplify the values that define the party (e.g., protecting the little guy, letting you choose your own life) and pound away at them for years, using every medium available (podcasts, nonpolitical TV shows, social media, etc.).
Second, Democrats would be wise to frame Trump and Republicans in direct, clear terms, which they can emphasize daily (e.g., the culture of corruption, the party of fat cats, reckless with your health and security). Each time Trump and his Republican acolytes do something that fits into one of these categories, Democrats must highlight their behavior and amplify it (requiring more facility with online influencing and new media).
For example: Nominating an anti-vaccination mandates, loony conspiracy theorist for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shows reckless disregard for Americans’ health; or Republicans recklessly passed forced-birth laws that resulted in women’s deaths and serious health incidents. They are not looking out for you and your family.
And finally, Democrats must be scrupulous in tying Republicans to the consequences of their policies. Controlling the White House and both houses means Republicans will not have the luxury of blaming others (although they will try). If voters do not understand how bad policy choices are impacting their lives, they will have no reason to hold Republicans accountable.
In sum, Democrats certainly need to keep coming up with good policy ideas and selling them to voters who care about such things. But they also need spend more time and effort improving communication with everyone else. Shaping shortcuts to help voters understand the fundamental differences between candidates should be a priority.
Distinguished persons of the week
Republicans generally seem inclined to allow Trump to expand executive power and empower a grab-bag of unqualified, extreme characters. But at least a few senators appear interested in preserving the Senate’s constitutional power — and obligation — to provide “advice and consent,” a critical part of our system of checks and balances.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) declared, “It is important to do these background checks, and the FBI has done this [for decades].” She continued, “It’s just been routine that they have been the one that has handled it. You don’t go to an outside private investigator, right?” After all, she pointed out, “If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process.” She expressed her firm belief that a thorough vetting is a requirement for Cabinet nominees.
Sounding somewhat less adamant, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) added, “The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement.” Maybe she should insist on it. Even Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), remarked that while Trump might choose to supplement the investigation with a private firm, he “sure wouldn’t leave it” entirely in private hands.
Murkowksi, who voted to convict Trump in the second impeachment trail and voted against confirming Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (but in favor of Trump’s other two right-wing nominees) might be the most independent-minded Republican remaining in the Senate. If she sticks to her guns on FBI background checks and takes the hard votes against absurd nominees and policies, she can preserve her reputation as a maverick. She might even inspire a few of her colleagues to show some spine.
Something different
My favorite sports league, by far, remains the English Premier League, the top division of professional football (soccer, for Americans). This year is particularly exciting. Manchester City, which has won a stunning four consecutive titles, finally seems to be running out of gas. Its embarrassing 4-0 loss last Saturday to Tottenham made for Man City’s fifth loss in a row (including international games), something their iconic manager, Pep Guardiola, had not experienced. He just signed a contract extension through 2027. The team, as you might imagine, is proclaimed to be in “crisis” mode.
But wouldn’t you know it? In Liverpool’s first year after losing its beloved manager, Jurgen Klopp, the team is playing like the champion — and pulling away in the table (standings). Watching forward Mohamed Salah, 32, again leading the league in goals scored can be compared to watching Argentine Lionel Messi in his prime.
While some teams clearly stand out — Chelsea, Brighton, Arsenal and Tottenham — almost every game is competitive and thrilling. That is, except for perennial disappointment Manchester United, which is once again underachieving, even after firing its manager. I can hardly wait for one of my favorite days of the year, Boxing Day (Dec. 26) — when all teams play.
Every other Wednesday at noon, I host a Q&A with readers. Submit a question for the next one.“
How Kennedy Has Worked Abroad to Weaken Global Public Health Policy
“How Kennedy Has Worked Abroad to Weaken Global Public Health Policy
The health secretary pick and his organization have worked around the world to undermine longstanding policies on measles, AIDS and more.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in line to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in the next Trump administration, is well-known for promoting conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism in the United States.
But Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has also spent years working abroad to undermine policies that have been pillars of global health policy for a half-century, records show.
He has done this by lending his celebrity, and the name of his nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, to a network of overseas chapters that sow distrust in vaccine safety and spread misinformation far and wide.
He, his organizations and their officials have interfered with vaccination efforts, undermined sex education campaigns meant to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa, and railed against global organizations like the World Health Organization that are in charge of health initiatives.
Along the way, Mr. Kennedy has partnered with, financed or promoted fringe figures — people who claim that 5G cellphone towers cause cancer, that homosexuality and contraceptive education are part of a global conspiracy to reduce African fertility and that the World Health Organization is trying to steal countries’ sovereignty.
One of his group’s advisers, in Uganda, suggested using “supernatural insight” and a man she calls Prophet Elvis to guide policymaking. “We do well to embrace ethereal means to get ahead as a nation,” she wrote on a Ugandan news site this year.
These people, more than leading scientists and experienced public health professionals, have existed in Mr. Kennedy’s orbit for years. The ideas spread by him and his associates abroad highlight the unorthodox, sometimes conspiratorial nature of the world occupied by a man who stands to lead America’s health department, its 80,000 employees and its $1.8 trillion budget.
Mr. Kennedy did not respond to a list of questions about his organization’s work abroad. His personal email automatically replied with a link to a Google form for people to apply to work with him in government — and name their own job titles. Mary Holland, the chief executive of Children’s Health Defense, said that Mr. Kennedy was the group’s “chairman on leave” and had not been involved in the day-to-day operations in over a year.
As health secretary, Mr. Kennedy would have the opportunity to reshape health policy. The department has a hand in negotiations for an international pandemic-response treaty, is the parent agency of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and finances global projects like vaccine campaigns.
He undermined confidence in the measles vaccine ahead of a deadly outbreak in Samoa.
Mr. Kennedy visited the Pacific island of Samoa in June 2019 in the aftermath of a public health tragedy.
During routine measles immunizations a year earlier, nurses had mistakenly mixed the vaccine with a muscle relaxant, leading to the death of two infants.
Measles, a highly contagious disease, is preventable, thanks to vaccines that have been proven safe since the 1960s.
But vaccine skeptics seized on the death of the two children as evidence that the vaccines should not be trusted. The Samoan government temporarily suspended its immunization program.
Mr. Kennedy arrived in Samoa, on the invitation of a local anti-vaccine activist, and amplified doubts about the vaccine’s safety. It was a crucial moment. Vaccination rates had plummeted, and the World Health Organization called for Samoa to ramp up immunization as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy met with the prime minister and other officials. He told activists that vaccines shipped to Samoa might be of a lower quality than those sent to developed countries.
“With his last name, and the status attached to it, people will believe him,” said Dr. Take Naseri, who met with Mr. Kennedy at the time as Samoa’s director general of health.
A measles outbreak began a few months after his visit. Eighty-three people died, most of them children, a staggering loss in a nation of about 200,000 people.
During the outbreak, Mr. Kennedy falsely suggested that defective vaccinescould have caused the deaths. He later dismissed the outbreak as “mild” and denied any connection to it. “I never told anybody not to vaccinate,” he said last year.
When Edwin Tamasese, the anti-vaccine campaigner who arranged Mr. Kennedy’s visit, was arrested and charged with incitement for interfering with vaccinations, Children’s Health Defense helped him obtain legal advice and paid for his lawyers, according to Mr. Tamasese.
The measles outbreak in Samoa ended after 95 percent of the eligible population received vaccinations, according to the W.H.O.
He and his organization promote AIDS falsehoods.
Sex education has been central to the global fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa for decades.
But officials with Children’s Health Defense Africa, one of Mr. Kennedy’s nonprofit groups, see a conspiracy at play.
Wahome Ngare, a Kenyan physician who sits on the group’s advisory board, argued at a conference in Uganda this year that contraception and health education were part of a global plot to reduce Africans’ fertility. He attended the conference alongside the head of the Children’s Health Defense Africa, who presented slides bearing the organization’s logo and web address.
Mr. Kennedy himself has questioned the accepted science behind AIDS. He falsely said that AIDS may have been caused by the recreational use among gay people of the drug amyl nitrite. It is caused by the virus H.I.V.
Last year, Children’s Health Defense posted a video promoting a book that questions the link between H.I.V. and AIDS. Another of the group’s interviewsubjects this year said that the former U.S. government scientist Anthony Fauci should be imprisoned or “taken off this Earth.”
Dr. Ngare is among the many people in Mr. Kennedy’s orbit whose views conflict sharply with those of the health agency that Mr. Kennedy stands to lead.
In an interview with NPR in 2015 before joining Children’s Health Defense Africa, Dr. Ngare mused about stories that “vaccines have been used for spread of H.I.V.” and called for a boycott of polio vaccines. The U.S. government is a major sponsor of polio vaccine campaigns worldwide. Dr. Ngare did not respond to requests for comment.
Ms. Holland, the chief executive of Children’s Health Defense, said those were Dr. Ngare’s personal views, not those of Mr. Kennedy’s organization.
At the conference in Uganda, Dr. Ngare spoke to far-right lawmakers and activists who support draconian punishments, including life in prison, for people convicted of having gay sex.
The United States has imposed sanctions on Ugandan officials over that law.
He aligned himself with fringe figures, including people who ended up on German security watch lists.
When Mr. Kennedy started his nonprofit group’s European chapter in August 2020, he floated questions about whether the Covid-19 pandemic was part of “a sinister game” played by governments to control people.
“A lot of it feels very planned to me,” he said in Berlin.
The next day, he rallied about 38,000 people at a protest over Covid-19 measures. The protest was organized by a German group called Querdenken. Its leaders have since ended up on a government watch list for fomenting antigovernment sentiment.
Promoters used Mr. Kennedy’s name to drum up attendance, saying that he personally wanted people to take to the streets and fight back. After the event, hundreds of protesters tried to storm the Reichstag, Germany’s Parliament.
Mr. Kennedy was not in attendance at the Parliament. “That whole Reichstag thing was completely unrelated to the demonstration,” Ms. Holland said.
Mr. Kennedy’s influence in Germany lives on, at least in online forums. Recent data from CeMAS, a research group that monitors conspiracy movements, shows that his name is often invoked on conspiracy-focused German Telegram channels, coming up more than 6,000 times this year alone.
His European chapter paid a British lawmaker to speak at a conference promoting vaccine skepticism.
Children’s Health Defense’s chapter in Europe has cultivated relationships with members of the European Parliament.
In January 2022, the organization held a news conference in Brussels demanding a “moratorium on health restrictions.” An anti-vaccine rally that followed the event turned violent, with protesters smashing windows at the European Union’s diplomatic headquarters.
In April 2023, Children’s Health Defense Europe helped organize a conference on the grounds of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. At the conference, lawmakers criticized a proposed pandemic treaty being considered at the World Health Organization.
The chapter has hosted press events with European lawmakers and encouraged Parliament to reject vaccination certificate rules.
In 2023, the European chapter paid a member of Britain’s Parliament, Andrew Bridgen, to speak at a conference it had helped organize. The conference discussed opposition to government pandemic measures and promoted vaccine skepticism. The sum was small, at just under $800, according to Mr. Bridgen’s financial disclosures. Such payments are legal in Britain.
Mr. Bridgen has repeatedly compared the Covid-19 vaccine rollout to the Holocaust, including in an interview with the Children’s Health Defense online television station.
Children’s Health Defense spent $315,000 in Europe last year, including in Iceland and Greenland, its U.S. tax filings show. Ms. Holland said that as of this year, the European chapter was run by volunteers and no longer funded by the U.S. operation.
His Africa chapter pushes measles misinformation and risky remedies.
In 2021, a South African herbalist named Toren Wing reached out to Mr. Kennedy about his effort to ban 5G cellphone towers over health concerns.
In an email, Mr. Wing recalled in an interview, he invoked a rousing speech about liberty that Mr. Kennedy’s father had delivered as a senator visiting apartheid South Africa in 1966.
“This is so cool,” Mr. Kennedy responded, according to a copy of the email. He looped in a Children’s Health Defense lawyer. The anti-5G effort fizzled, Mr. Wing said, but it laid the groundwork for a Children’s Health Defense chapter in Africa.
At the chapter’s launch, Mr. Kennedy said the continent was “a testing and clinical trial laboratory for multinational pharmaceutical companies that see African people as commodities.” His group sent just over $15,000 for “setup expenses” in 2022, U.S. tax filings show.
Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, who leads the chapter, is a frequent host of the nonprofit’s online show. She interviews doctors promoting unproven Covid-19 remedies and rails against vaccines.
After a measles outbreak started in Cape Town, Ms. Mohamed appeared in a video discussing supposed negative effects of “alleged measles injections” in South Africa.
In 2023, Unicef reported a 30 percent decline in confidence in childhood vaccines in South Africa after the Covid-19 pandemic, coming amid the world’s “largest sustained backslide in childhood immunization in 30 years.” The group cited factors including “growing access to misleading information.”
Ms. Mohamed and others affiliated with Children’s Health Defense Africa pushed the discredited theory that the drug ivermectin will treat Covid-19. They also sued the South African government, unsuccessfully, to stop Covid-19 vaccinations. Ms. Mohamed thanked Children’s Health Defense for supporting the case.
Ms. Mohamed has promoted conspiracy theories against the World Health Organization, Bill Gates and two of the world’s biggest money managers, BlackRock and Vanguard. Ms. Mohamed declined to answer questions about her work.
“I don’t think she was speaking on behalf of C.H.D.,” said Ms. Holland, who said the Africa chapter was a volunteer organization. “She’s an individual. She has her own views.”
Kimon de Greef contributed reporting.
Selam Gebrekidan is an investigative reporter for The Times whose work focuses on accountability — of governments, companies and people who wield power.More about Selam Gebrekidan
Friday, November 29, 2024
Georgia Destination Named One Of The 10 'Most Sinful Cities In America'
Georgia Destination Named One Of The 10 'Most Sinful Cities In America'
“Do you live in one of the most sinful cities in the country? Just because a destination may not have earned the nickname "Sin City" doesn't mean the people living there are above having their own share of vices, from gambling and excessive drinking to health concerns and struggles with addiction.
WalletHub compared over 180 cities around the country to determine which are the "most sinful cities in America." While Las Vegas — Sin City itself — continues to rank in first place, plenty of other destinations face enough of their own vices to earn a spot on the list, including three cities in Georgia:
- No. 4: Atlanta
- No. 113: Augusta
- No. 119: Columbus
At No. 4 overall, Atlanta not only ranked as the most sinful city in the Peach State but as one of most sinful cities in the entire country largely thanks to its high marks in the jealousy, lust and anger & hatred categories.
These are the Top 10 most sinful cities in America:
- Las Vegas, Nevada
- Houston, Texas
- Los Angeles, California
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Denver, Colorado
- Phoenix, Arizona
- Miami, Florida
- Dallas, Texas
- St. Louis, Missouri
To determine the list, WalletHub compared 182 cities around the U.S. using seven key factors: anger & hatred, jealousy, excesses & vices, greed, lust, vanity and laziness. These factors were then evaluated across 37 relevant metrics, including violent crimes per 1,000 residents, hate groups per capita, number of mass shootings, thefts per 1,000 residents, share of obese adults, share of adult smokers, casinos per capita, teen birth rate, tanning salons per capita, share of adults not exercising and high school dropout rate, among others.
Check out the full report at WalletHub.com to read more about the most sinful cities in the country.“