The Central Issue of Trump

March 20, 2018

Trump says and does so many things which are parts of much bigger issues, that it’s nearly impossible to keep up.

  • He has us discussing whether he’s going to fire one guy or the other, who does or doesn’t deserve to go;
  • Whether Trump will make war or peace and what country deserves our friendship or enmity;
  • Whether we will honor or dishonor treaties that he claims other countries violate, though no one else shares that view;
  • Whether he has a policy about infrastructure based on his saying things should be built or does not have a policy based on the empty line in his budget;
  • Whether he has conspired with an enemy of the United States, and whether the Special Counsel’s investigation should be shut down because he tells us that he did nothing that should be investigated, and whether it matters that he didn’t give Hillary that privilege.

It makes the head spin.

We’re heading in just a few years to an economy in which most of us won’t have steady jobs, pensions or unions to support us. Instead it’s everyone for himself all the time in the gig economy. Republicans insist that government and regulation are almost always bad. Who’s left to have our interests at heart? Reminds me of pastor Martin Niemöller on being sent to the concentration camps by the Nazis, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” Is Trump for or against the workers when he says nothing about union rights and supports no change in working conditions other than tariffs for a couple of industries. And is Trump for or against a livable environment when he takes every possible action to degrade the earth, air and water?

We have been at war since 2003 but what do we have to show for it but body bags and amputees. Will Trump send more troops to die in the Middle East, or is he just bluffing to make people back down? But attempted bluffing will be ignored by people across the globe who have all lost confidence in what he tells us because we need only wait a short while for him to say the opposite.

Trump wants the Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, to stop investigating whether Trump or his campaign collaborated with the Russians in order to win the White House, or wants to fire Mueller and hire someone else who will close the investigation? Does it matter whether criminal defense lawyers may want their accused clients to have a right to choose their prosecutors and put a time limit on investigations, especially for such difficult prosecutions as those of organized crime, corporate finagling and international financial transactions. Can they cite the president for that right?

It’s enough to make one’s head spin. But there’s a way to simplify it. Forget all the separate issues until we have a president that actually cares about them, and focus on impeachment. Every one of those issues bears on impeachment, either because they relate to obstruction of justice, selling America out, self-dealing in foreign affairs or rewarding his favorite autocrats and wealthy friends at the expense of the people he swore to protect. His high crimes and misdemeanors easily exceed what Clinton was impeached over, threaten more damage to the republic than the misbehavior for which Andrew Johnson was impeached, and for which Richard Nixon resigned before the House could vote on articles of impeachment. Bring all these issues back to the fundamental question of impeachment. Dirty Donald, lock him up.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, March 20, 2018.


Guns and Vegas

October 10, 2017

Why, after Vegas, Sandy Hook and other mass killings of decent men, women and children, is it so hard to get real gun control?

The NRA was  an association of hunters and sportsman, reasonable and trustworthy neighbors. Now the NRA, its leaders and vocal supporters argue Americans should have the right to buy any kind of firearm from tanks and machine guns to silencers. Where did that come from?

A good bet might be manufacturers. Despite the praise Republicans like to lavish on the free market, too many businesses look at profits before safety, honor or humanity. That can make life miserable without

But part of their audience is quite radical, some of which goes back to the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson sent General Carl Schurz to report on conditions in the South following the War. Schurz reported that southern slave-owners continued riding patrol to force the former slaves back to their plantations. Those informal groups gradually coalesced into organizations that fought, killed and intimidated African-Americans and their white supporters in order to regain white control of the former Confederate States. In such notorious events as the Colfax Massacre, many were killed in order to return Colfax County to white slaveowner control. Those groups eventually became the KKK and similar organizations which terrorized African-Americans in the former Confederacy and border states for a century. The Klan never really disappeared despite passage of the Civil Rights Laws. The connection between the battle to keep the South white, the flag of the Confederacy and the sight of guns is no accident. Trump’s campaign and victory re-invigorated these white supremacists, and the Alt-Wrong.

They want tanks, machine guns and other massively destructive weapons to prevent tyranny, by which they mean federal tyranny, so they need the capacity to fight the federal government.[1] One problem of course is that’s another civil war. Another is that their definition of tyranny isn’t one most of us would accept. Many believe that tyranny is here.

That radical segment of gun-owners are not patriots. They are not supporters of government of, by and for the people that we created in 1787 and improved by Amendment after the Civil War. Their ideal is government by white supremacists to the exclusion of everyone else. And that’s aimed at most of us – those of us whose views are more welcoming, and those who don’t satisfy the supremacists’ view of Christianity. They’re also aimed at resolving political disputes by taking the law into their own hands.[2] Politically, if we don’t protect each other, who will protect those of us who remain? This political and cultural crisis is existential. The America most of us admire and care about is an America they despise and want to conquer. That’s what tanks and machine guns are for.

The radicals’ resistance to sharing America with the rest of us leads to armed rebellions, like those of Cliven Bundy and his supporters, or self-styled “sovereign citizens” who routinely refuse to respect the law. There is nothing peace-loving or law-abiding about the radicals.

The mood of the country has been changing, witness the removal of many Confederate flags and monuments. But that stimulates the haters. They’re losing control and they hate that, and us. Reasonable and trustworthy gun owners would do better to distance themselves from the radicals who have taken a prominent and threatening role in the debate over weapons.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 10, 2017.

[1] One NRA member from Texas told an NPR reporter, “As far as I’m concerned, if you can afford to buy a tank, you should be able to buy a tank.” He explained: “the Second Amendment was put in not to hunt, not to go plink at cans, not to shoot at targets. If and when tyranny tries to take over our country, we can fight it.” A recent NRA President, Jim Porter wanted people to be “ready to fight tyranny.” When he was NRA vice-president, Porter told an audience that “We got the pads put on, we got our helmets strapped on, we’re cinched up, we’re ready to fight, we’re out there fighting every day.”

[2] NPR’s Wade Goodwyn reported that speakers at a recent NRA convention “emphasized their belief that there are two Americas: the righteousness of the right and the decadence of the left.” In other words, one of the strands of fanaticism behind the NRA is political – not just that gun rights are political, but that the purpose of having gun rights is political, to change the society from one they dislike to one they like.


In the Wake of Atrocities is Moderation Possible

November 28, 2015

In the wake of murders like those in Paris, is it possible to talk about moderation? The impulse to kill is very strong. I know I’d feel it if it came close. And yet we know that many innocent men are put to death. And if an innocent person is executed, the killer, or killers, are still alive. And kangaroo courts or lynch law threaten everyone. The circle of murder can widen, as it did with the infamous Hatfields and McCoys. I’ve taught a descendent of the McCoys, actually a lovely young woman in West Virginia. But a murder turned into a war and decimated the families. Was that worth it – all the innocent lives. We are taught that two wrongs don’t make a right, but in the aftermath, do we have the strength to see that?

It was very difficult to oppose the war in Iraq. We know now it was a mistake, and one that did a great deal of damage, in the lives of innocent men and women, in destabilizing the region, in creating the opportunity for Daesh to thrive.

I’m terrified of the political pressure behind the hawks now. So-called collateral damage can cause a reaction that engulfs the world in flames. Our own reactions to the Paris bombing demonstrate the fact. Yet Daesh clearly hopes that we in turn will cause so much collateral damage that it will pull all the Muslims that oppose Daesh now into the fray to defend an Islam that seems under attack.

We should have learned by now that what matters in war is not what we think is justified, but what our actions produce. Lincoln understood that, calculating carefully how and when he used the slavery issue in the Civil War. Vietnam should have brought home to us that what people think matters. But the atrocities of some both in the Administration and carrying the flag in Iraq showed that the lessons of Vietnam didn’t reach everyone. Iraq continues to be a problem for us not only because it destabilized the region but also because the crude things that some people did in the name of America continue to inflame many people about us. It’s not about appeasement; it’s about pacification. It’s about keeping conflicts as small as possible. Every conflict isn’t about Hitler in 1938; sometimes the right analogy is to Versailles at the end of World War I when the victorious allies imposed punishments that radicalized the German people. Notice how differently the end of World War II came out, when the allies reaffirmed the rule of law and found constructive ways forward, not only for us but for the German people, not only the Marshall Plan but also the European Union which gave Germany both an important role and an important stake in the future of a united Europe.

That’s hard. That takes real statesmanship. Vice-president Biden’s comments Saturday impressed me. He started by identifying Daesh’s goals and then pointed out that we should not play into their hands by widening the war against Islam. Think of Daesh as holding a match and trying to start a fire or a detonator and trying to set off an explosion. Daesh by itself is infuriating. One commentator compared them to pirates. But without sparking that wider war, they cannot defeat us or any significant country. In this conflict, we have to respond with our heads, not our hearts. Like forest fighters, we have to contain the blaze before we can put it out. President Obama’s talk about containment was absolutely right. Thank heaven that we have a president who uses his head. The question is whether the American people can rise to the challenge of supporting a policy that’s based on intelligent calculations instead of emotional displays of power.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, November 24, 2015.


ISL and US Foreign Policy

September 16, 2014

America decided to deal with the Native Americans by war and exile. It took three centuries, as succeeding generations of Indians realized that the White Man would honor no treaty and give them no peace.

Israel has tried since the 1960s to deal with what initially were relatively isolated attacks, by holding every country in the neighborhood responsible, and responding massively to each attack. Six decades later the problem has widened. Unlike the Native Americans, the Palestinians have major allies.

We have repeatedly responded with military force to foreign problems only to see them spin out of control and make things much worse. Read the rest of this entry »


The Threat of Self-Styled Armed Militias

May 20, 2014

Some of us remember having to sign loyalty oaths. In the language of the U.S. Supreme Court, one had to swear that he or she had not “advocate[d] the overthrow of government by force, violence, or any unlawful means.” That included the overthrow of “the Government of the United States or of any political subdivisions.” In the 1950s everyone from barbers to professors had to sign those things and even cafeteria workers got fired on mere suspicion of disloyalty, the absence of proof notwithstanding.

Of course it was political. Senator McCarthy famously attacked President Truman and many of the people in the cabinet as disloyal. Republicans attacked Democrats and liberals as if they supported a Communist invasion. It was a campaign of character assassination. Charges were brought without facts that prosecutors were willing to reveal until the Supreme Court pointed out that it had the obligation to insist on fundamental due process like the right to see the charges and confront witnesses. But at least, at some level, however misguided, it was about patriotism.

Now, a group of armed self-styled militiamen blocked the federal government from charging Cliven Bundy the fee for grazing his cattle on federal land. Then they took their weapons to a closed federal canyon, to open it by force for use by ATVs. They bluntly deny the authority of the federal government. To make it worse, prominent Republicans called Bundy’s refusal to pay for grazing his cattle on federal land, and the armed intervention of his militia supporters, “patriotic.” Read the rest of this entry »


%d bloggers like this: