In Her Words: Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex on the losses we share

In a year like no other, pain, both private and public.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story November 25, 2020 Art photograph by Paul Cupido, Danziger Gallery By Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex “In being invited to share our pain, together we take the first steps toward healing.” — Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT In today’s special edition of In Her Words, we’re featuring an essay by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. Although she needs no introduction, a little background may be valuable: She and her husband, Prince Harry, gave up their royal duties in January and moved to California with their young son, Archie. Today she writes of the challenges, both private and public, of an unprecedented year. — Francesca Donner, editor It was a July morning that began as ordinarily as any other day: Make breakfast. Feed the dogs. Take vitamins. Find that missing sock. Pick up the rogue crayon that rolled under the table. Throw my hair in a ponytail before getting my son from his crib. After changing his diaper, I felt a sharp cramp. I dropped to the floor with him in my arms, humming a lullaby to keep us both calm, the cheerful tune a stark contrast to my sense that something was not right. I knew, as I clutched my firstborn child, that I was losing my second. Hours later, I lay in a hospital bed, holding my husband’s hand. I felt the clamminess of his palm and kissed his knuckles, wet from both our tears. Staring at the cold white walls, my eyes glazed over. I tried to imagine how we’d heal. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT I recalled a moment last year when Harry and I were finishing up a long tour in South Africa. I was exhausted. I was breastfeeding our infant son, and I was trying to keep a brave face in the very public eye. “Are you OK?” a journalist asked me. I answered him honestly, not knowing that what I said would resonate with so many — new moms and older ones, and anyone who had, in their own way, been silently suffering. My off-the-cuff reply seemed to give people permission to speak their truth. But it wasn’t responding honestly that helped me most, it was the question itself. “Thank you for asking,” I said. “Not many people have asked if I’m OK.” Sitting in a hospital bed, watching my husband’s heart break as he tried to hold the shattered pieces of mine, I realized that the only way to begin to heal is to first ask, “Are you OK?” Are we? This year has brought so many of us to our breaking points. Loss and pain have plagued every one of us in 2020, in moments both fraught and debilitating. We’ve heard all the stories: A woman starts her day, as normal as any other, but then receives a call that she’s lost her elderly mother to Covid-19. A man wakes feeling fine, maybe a little sluggish, but nothing out of the ordinary. He tests positive for the coronavirus and within weeks, he — like hundreds of thousands of others — has died. A young woman named Breonna Taylor goes to sleep, just as she’s done every night before, but she doesn’t live to see the morning because a police raid turns horribly wrong. George Floyd leaves a convenience store, not realizing he will take his last breath under the weight of someone’s knee, and in his final moments, calls out for his mom. Peaceful protests become violent. Health rapidly shifts to sickness. In places where there was once community, there is now division. On top of all of this, it seems we no longer agree on what is true. We aren’t just fighting over our opinions of facts; we are polarized over whether the fact is, in fact, a fact. We are at odds over whether science is real. We are at odds over whether an election has been won or lost. We are at odds over the value of compromise. That polarization, coupled with the social isolation required to fight this pandemic, has left us feeling more alone than ever. When I was in my late teens, I sat in the back of a taxi zipping through the busyness and bustle of Manhattan. I looked out the window and saw a woman on her phone in a flood of tears. She was standing on the sidewalk, living out a private moment very publicly. At the time, the city was new to me, and I asked the driver if we should stop to see if the woman needed help. He explained that New Yorkers live out their personal lives in public spaces. “We love in the city, we cry in the street, our emotions and stories there for anybody to see,” I remember him telling me. “Don’t worry, somebody on that corner will ask her if she’s OK.” Now, all these years later, in isolation and lockdown, grieving the loss of a child, the loss of my country’s shared belief in what’s true, I think of that woman in New York. What if no one stopped? What if no one saw her suffering? What if no one helped? I wish I could go back and ask my cabdriver to pull over. This, I realize, is the danger of siloed living — where moments sad, scary or sacrosanct are all lived out alone. There is no one stopping to ask, “Are you OK?” Losing a child means carrying an almost unbearable grief, experienced by many but talked about by few. In the pain of our loss, my husband and I discovered that in a room of 100 women, 10 to 20 of them will have suffered from miscarriage. Yet despite the staggering commonality of this pain, the conversation remains taboo, riddled with (unwarranted) shame, and perpetuating a cycle of solitary mourning. Some have bravely shared their stories; they have opened the door, knowing that when one person speaks truth, it gives license for all of us to do the same. We have learned that when people ask how any of us are doing, and when they really listen to the answer, with an open heart and mind, the load of grief often becomes lighter — for all of us. In being invited to share our pain, together we take the first steps toward healing. So this Thanksgiving, as we plan for a holiday unlike any before — many of us separated from our loved ones, alone, sick, scared, divided and perhaps struggling to find something, anything, to be grateful for — let us commit to asking others, “Are you OK?” As much as we may disagree, as physically distanced as we may be, the truth is that we are more connected than ever because of all we have individually and collectively endured this year. We are adjusting to a new normal where faces are concealed by masks, but it’s forcing us to look into one another’s eyes — sometimes filled with warmth, other times with tears. For the first time, in a long time, as human beings, we are really seeing one another. Are we OK? We will be. Read more: You Know Someone Who Had a Miscarriage. In Her Words is edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Sandra Stevenson. Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. Follow us on Instagram at @nytgender. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Politics: Biden Brings the Gang Back Together

The Obama administration, Part 2, takes shape: This is your morning tip sheet.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story November 25, 2020 By Giovanni Russonello The stock market surges as the transition moves ahead — and progressives have a clear message: Don’t forget about us. It’s Wednesday, and this is your politics tip sheet. We’ll be taking the rest of the week off for Thanksgiving and will return on Monday. Enjoy the holiday! Where things stand Joe Biden and Kamala Harris formally unveiled six top members of their foreign policy and national security team yesterday, as they seek to reassert a sense of political normalcy after four volatile years. Speaking in Wilmington, Del., Biden declared that the group — all six of whom are veterans of the Obama administration — was “ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,” a clear rebuke of President Trump’s “America first” ideology. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT “This team behind me, they embody my core belief that America is strongest when it works with its allies,” he said. “Collectively, this team has secured some of the most defining national security and diplomatic achievements in recent memory — made possible through decades of experience working with our partners.” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Biden’s pick to become the ambassador to the United Nations, declared: “America is back, multilateralism is back, diplomacy is back.” As Biden assembles his team, he is working to unify a factious Democratic Party, whose young, progressive wing has grown increasingly empowered in recent years — and whose leading voices have no interest in a rerun of the Obama years. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib — members of the so-called Squad — yesterday became the first House members to sign a petition urging Biden not to name Bruce Reed, his former chief of staff, to lead the Office of Management and Budget. The petition calls Reed a “deficit hawk” and calls him out for expressing support in the past for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. And one day after Senator Dianne Feinstein announced that she would give up her position as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, bowing to pressure from the party’s left wing, a number of progressives indicated that they weren’t satisfied with deposing her — they also wanted a say in her replacement. Some indicated yesterday that they did not want Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Democrat on the committee who is next in line in seniority, to take the top spot, and instead favored Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Seen as a friendlier ally to the left, he issued a statement last night in which he did not rule out a run for the top spot. A wave of states certified their election results yesterday, a procedural move that would barely merit a mention after a typical election. This year, however, the validation of those results felt hard-won. Pennsylvania, Nevada and Minnesota all certified their results in favor of Biden, delivering him 36 electoral votes between them. North Carolina certified its 15 electoral votes for Trump. “I want to thank the election officials who have administered a fair and free election during an incredibly challenging time in our commonwealth and country’s history,” Tom Wolf, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, wrote on Twitter. The stock market soared to record highs yesterday, as investors responded to the news that the head of the General Services Administration had acknowledged Biden’s victory and that the president-elect would nominate Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary. A former chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, Yellen has been an outspoken proponent of government spending to shore up the economy. Trump gave a one-minute-long address to reporters at the White House briefing room yesterday afternoon, seeming to take credit for the stock market surge. “It’s the 48th time that we’ve broken records in, during the Trump administration, and I just want to congratulate all the people within the administration that worked so hard, and most importantly I want to congratulate the people of our country, because there are no people like you,” he said. Photo of the day Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Biden put his mask on after introducing his choices for his foreign policy and national security team. What kind of Treasury secretary will Janet Yellen be? Biden’s expected nomination of Yellen as his Treasury secretary has generally been met with satisfaction from across the political spectrum, earning praise from business leaders and financiers as well as progressive policymakers. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Yellen served as chairwoman of the Federal Reserve during both the Obama and Trump administrations and would bring decades of experience to the job, as well as a reputation for seriousness and rigor. And, as our senior economics correspondent Neil Irwin writes in an analysis for The Upshot, “she’ll need every ounce of those qualities” as she seeks to pilot the economy out of a pandemic-driven recession. Neil agreed to answer a few questions about Yellen and how she would be likely to approach the role. We live in a time of deep partisan divides — which often means congressional gridlock. How much power would Yellen have as Treasury secretary to help prop up the economic recovery, with or without legislative help? The biggest thing that Yellen will be able to do unilaterally as Treasury secretary is to take a different stance than her predecessor, Steven Mnuchin, on how restrictive to be in the design of joint Fed-Treasury lending programs. The Mnuchin Treasury has insisted that these programs be structured in ways that limit the government’s potential losses, but that has made them less effective and less appealing to businesses. The Yellen Treasury will probably take a different stance. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Beyond that, the Yellen Treasury will have some power at the margins to try to interpret tax and regulatory policies in ways that help the recovery, but will need a lot of help from Congress to really do the things that economists think are needed to help the economy get through the winter and to the period of widespread vaccine availability. While the Fed is concerned with monetary policy — that is, the flow of available currency into the economy — the Treasury Department is more concerned with fiscal policy, which has to do with taxing and spending. Do we have a sense of how Yellen will approach fiscal matters? Yellen is certainly comfortable with ambitious spending plans and high budget deficits in the near term as the nation tries to get out of the pandemic-induced downturn. And she strongly believes that there is a crucial role for the government to help workers. But she is more worried about long-term budget deficits than some on the left. She is worried about long-term entitlement spending and believes that public debt can weigh on growth. In the near term, in crafting a pandemic response, that doesn’t matter, but in the medium term she could well find herself as a voice of fiscal restraint relative to the left flank of the Democratic Party. While the administrations will change in January, Jerome Powell will remain as Fed chair. What is Yellen’s relationship with him like, and how much will he serve as a source of steadiness and continuity? Yellen and Powell know each other very well and have a great deal of mutual respect. During the time she was in charge of the Fed, Powell was an influential Fed governor, an ally of Yellen on most issues and someone she entrusted with overseeing a lot of the nuts and bolts of the work the Fed carries out. They may have some philosophical differences, but I think they will be very effective collaborators in trying to ensure that these different arms of the government are pushing toward the same goal. And while Powell is politically more conservative than she is, they share a very pragmatic streak and a sense that getting the right answer for the American economy is more important than ideology. As you write in your story, much of the Treasury secretary’s responsibility also has to do with foreign policy, and how the United States interacts with its trading partners. What do we know about the challenges Yellen will face, particularly when it comes to the United States’ rivalry with China — and do we have any idea how she will approach those challenges? This is one of the areas where we know less about what Yellen will do. As Fed chair, you’re really playing second fiddle when it comes to setting the terms of the United States’ economic relationship with other major powers like China. It’s really the purview of the Treasury secretary, the secretary of state, and ultimately the president. Today, the relationship between the U.S. and China is more inherently hostile than it was during Yellen’s Fed chairmanship. She’ll have power over some areas of that relationship that she has never really touched before, such as the Treasury body that controls whether foreign interests should be prohibited from owning companies in the United States on national security grounds. (This is the mechanism by which the Trump administration is forcing a divestment of TikTok.) Yellen knows the economic relationship as well as anybody, but even after covering her for a long time, I don’t know how she will approach the geostrategic aspects of things. RECOMMENDED READING Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Biden’s National Security Team Offers a Sharp Turn. But in Which Direction? The picks are a repudiation of President Trump’s isolationism, but they will have to resolve tensions between an Obama-era approach and the “fresh thinking” the president-elect says he wants. By Annie Karni and David E. Sanger Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times political memo Trump Stress-Tested the Election System, and the Cracks Showed Even in the absence of a questionable outcome or any evidence of fraud, President Trump managed to freeze the passage of power for most of a month. By Alexander Burns Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox. Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018