Heather Cox Richardson

May 17, 2020 (Sunday)

Three stories tonight.

One from the future, one from the past, and one from the present.

From the future…

The story of Trump’s 30-day notice that he was firing Steve A. Linick as inspector general of the State Department bothers me for a different reason than the obvious. Of course, Trump’s continuing purge of inspectors general is not okay. Neither is Republican senators’ willingness to go along with it.

But I am also curious about something else. The media is reporting that Linick was looking into whether Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife Susan have been using staffers to conduct their personal business. But that story is actually not new: there have been similar complaints about the Pompeos since 2018.

So why was Linick on the chopping block now? It is just a further purge? After all, he is the fourth inspector general to be fired lately. Or was there something else going on? Pompeo’s aggressive Christian stance at State, combined with his affinity for propaganda outlets like Breitbart, has always made me nervous about how he is approaching foreign affairs, so it is entirely likely I’m overly suspicious. But the Pompeo story is something I’ll be watching in the future.

From the past…

Today is the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision outlawing school segregation. The decision was made under a Republican Chief Justice, Earl Warren, who had previously been the governor of California, and the decision was unanimous. “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” the court said.

It handed down the decision in the midst of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which ran from April to June. In these televised proceedings, Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy, also a Republican, but part of a small faction that hated America’s active post-World War Two government, tried to prove that the government that had pulled the nation out of the Depression and mobilized it for war was welcoming communism into America. Communism had spread even into the military, McCarthy charged. Seeing the senator bluster and bully on television, rather than hearing his frightening charges tidied up in newspapers, turned Americans against him. His star fell after the hearings, and he died of complications from alcoholism two years later.

But school desegregation gave his warnings and his bullying style a new lease on life. Brown v. Board enabled opponents of the postwar government to tie racism to their hatred of government regulation of business and provision of a basic social safety net. They insisted the Supreme Court’s decision proved that the activist government Americans had embraced in the 1930s and 1940s was designed simply to redistribute wealth from hardworking white taxpayers to lazy African Americans. Government officials and programs, paid for with taxes, offered black Americans benefits like good schools and the military protection necessary to attend them. This argument would attract southern Democrats to the Republican Party, and by 1970, the party would abandon the cause of civil rights in favor of an anti-communism that was shot through with racism.

All these decades later, the formulation embraced by opponents of Brown v. Board has landed us in a spot where any government activism, even requirements that people wear masks during a deadly pandemic, is greeted with fury by a part of the population that sees any government action that helps ordinary Americans as socialism, and usually links that to race.

And from the present…

I have walked by this shed wall of lobster buoys my whole life and never paid much attention to it. A new eye and a new angle turned it into something else altogether.

Happy Sunday, Everyone. Let’s buckle up for a busy week.


[Photo by Buddy Poland]

7 Likes

what am i missing?

2 Likes

That when photographed in the right light, what she’d been taking for granted suddenly becomes a mosaic of gorgeous colors and textures?

6 Likes

May 18, 2020 (Monday)

So I was right to be suspicious. The story broke today that Steven Linick, the State Department Inspector General Trump has announced he is removing, was not simply looking into whether Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife Susan had used staff members for personal errands.

Linick was finishing up an investigation of Pompeo’s decision last year to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia against the wishes of a bipartisan majority in Congress. State Department officials were recently briefed on the inspector general’s conclusions.

The 2018 Saudi arms deal was important at the time, but has been so eclipsed by other events we could likely all use a refresher. Here’s my best shot at pulling the story together. A warning: I expect that I don’t have all the pieces perfectly in place (I can’t tell yet how many authorizations for sharing nuclear technology were secretly permitted, for example) because there are so many moving pieces. I apologize in advance for errors, and promise I’ll get this material more fine tuned as the story warrants.

It starts with the fact that in 2018, Congress took a stand against the Trump administration’s willingness to look the other way after the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and writer for the Washington Post. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi disappeared in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul where he was going to retrieve documents so he could remarry. Evidence gradually leaked out that Khashoggi had been murdered, and our intelligence agencies concluded that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (often called MBS), had authorized the killing.

But Trump refused to acknowledge that connection, and sidestepped the law requiring him to report to Congress about the murder. This raised questions about the administration’s relationship to the Saudis, especially in two areas: first, the apparent friendship between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and MBS; and second, the efforts of administration officials, originally led by General Michael Flynn during the transition, to work around established channels to export nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. This deal would be worth a lot of money if they could pull it off.

(Multiple whistleblowers warned the House about this, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform published a report on it in February 2019. The administration granted authorizations to two U.S. companies to share the technology for nuclear power plants shortly after Khashoggi’s murder. Members of the administration continued to meet with nuclear power developers for the Middle East, a plan that appears to have been part of Kushner’s Middle East peace plan, prompting bipartisan groups of lawmakers to try to block the deals out of concern that Saudi Arabia would develop a nuclear weapon. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secretly approved six authorizations by March 2019, but as near as I can tell, Pompeo refused to release the names of the companies who got those authorizations.)

Meanwhile, the Saudis were embroiled in a war in Yemen, which was causing a humanitarian crisis. Congress opposed supporting the Saudis in that war. In April 2019, it passed a resolution to withdraw support for the Saudis in that conflict, but Trump vetoed it and Republicans in the Senate refused to override his veto.

There is a law, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires that the president give Congress 30 days notice before selling arms over a certain value to another country, so lawmakers can weigh in on the sales. But the law also permits the president to bypass Congress if he declares that “an emergency exists that requires the proposed sale in the national security interest of the United States.”

In May 2019, Trump abruptly extended a longstanding emergency declaration with regard to Iran, which enabled Pompeo to approve the sales of 8.1 billion dollars worth of arms to three Arab nations, but primarily Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, despite congressional disapproval. Congress members and career Foreign Service officers opposed the sales, which included sensitive national security technology. But Pompeo pushed hard for them. “These sales will support our allies, enhance Middle East stability and help these nations to deter and defend themselves from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said.

Lawmakers of both parties were furious, and both houses voted to block the sales, but Trump vetoed their measures. At this point, In June 2019, the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Linick to launch an investigation into the way that State Department officials, including Pompeo, had handled the arms sales. They saw no credible justification for an emergency that required sidestepping congressional approval, and noted that many of the weapons would not be ready for shipping for a year or more, negating the idea they were for an emergency. Their letter strongly hinted that the decision threw work to defense industries with inappropriate ties to the administration.

Pompeo refused to be interviewed by the inspector general’s office, and asked Trump to fire Linick. Trump claimed he had “never even heard of” Linick, but “many of these people were Obama appointments. So I just got rid of him.”

This story strikes me as big. The arms sales themselves are a big deal, but I wonder if there is a connection between the sales and the attempt to share nuclear technology with the Saudis. Lots and lots of money at stake there. And Flynn-- who is also in the news these days as the Justice Department seeks to drop his case-- was deep into the project, too.

Too many moving pieces to have at all a clear view yet. We’ll see.

Or not. This afternoon, Trump announced he is currently taking the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. The White House physician released a letter that did not confirm the president’s statement. Indeed, it skirted the issue altogether, simply saying that the president and the doctor, Sean P. Conley, had discussed the drug, and “we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.”

It is hard to imagine any doctor would have prescribed a drug whose side effects include heart attack to an older, overweight, president. It seems more likely that he is not actually taking such a drug, but said so because he was looking either to boost the drug again or to grab headlines away from the story about the Saudi arms sales. If so, it worked well; media outlets have prioritized his statement about taking the drug over the story of the Saudi arms sales and their connection to the firing of the State Department’s inspector general. The story has also taken attention from the fact that more than 90,000 American have now died from Covid-19.

A quick follow-up to the story of North Carolina Senator Richard Burr stepping down from his position at the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has replaced him with Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who has, in the past, been a hawk on Russian interference in American elections. This was a better appointment than I feared.

Once again, we’ll see.

10 Likes

May 19, 2020 (Tuesday)

There was little specific today that anyone needs to pay attention to. If you are cooked, take a break with a clean conscience.

But for people who are interested, there were events today that advanced storylines we already knew.

There was disinformation dumped about former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. What purports to be audio clips of former Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry talking to then-President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine are circulating. They appear to show the men talking about firing Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, which was, of course, official U.S. policy at the time. But anti-Biden outlets are representing this conversation as proof that Biden was part of “international corruption and treason at the highest levels of government.”

Today, the White House released a previously classified email in which on the day of Trump’s inauguration, National Security Advisor Susan Rice recorded an account of a meeting that took place on January 5, 2017. In that meeting, FBI Director James Comey told President Barack Obama and some of his key advisors that he was concerned about Trump advisor Michael Flynn’s frequent communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

President Obama asked if there was reason for the National Security Council not to pass on to Flynn sensitive information about Russia. Comey answered “potentially.” He said he had no indication that Flynn was passing classified information to Kislyak, but that he was worried about the amount of communication between the two men. Obama asked Comey to let him know if anything happened that should change how the administration shared information with the incoming Trump administration. Comey said he would.

The Trump administration insists this email proves that the Obama administration illegally spied on his campaign, but it’s hard not to see this email as proof the Obama administration was trying to protect the nation without hamstringing Obama’s successor. Rice’s email notes that President Obama stressed that he was not talking about law enforcement matters or investigations when he asked Comey to keep him apprised of any necessary changes to how his administration briefed the incoming Trump administration.

The release of this email brings up the elephant in the room, though. Why doesn’t the administration release the Flynn-Kislyak calls themselves? The more information they release about the calls, the odder it seems that they are not declassifying those. Former National Security Advisor Rice has called for the Trump administration to release the call transcripts. According to her spokesperson, “The American people deserve the full transcripts so they can judge for themselves Michael Flynn’s conduct.”

Also in the news today was a new story about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, it turns out, held expensive secret dinners for CEOs, Republican members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, and right-wing media, paid for with public monies. The events do not appear to have been part of the State Department foreign policy mission, but rather were intended to cultivate Pompeo’s political career. They were parties hosted by him and his wife, who orchestrated them, although they were paid for out of a State Department fund called the “Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service Appropriation,” intended for use in the “confidential requirements in the conduct of foreign affairs as well as other authorized activities that further the realization of U.S. foreign policy objectives.”

This next story is more complicated, but it’s important: The Senate Intelligence Committee voted along party lines to approve Trump’s nomination of Texas congressman John Ratcliffe to become the next Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the seventeen agencies of the United States Intelligence Community. Trump had tried to name Ratcliffe to the position last summer, after getting rid of his first DNI, Dan Coats, and refusing to appoint Coats’s deputy director to take the job. Trump had to give up the plan when it turned out that Ratcliffe had misrepresented the few qualifications he claimed to have for the job, which the law states requires someone who has “extensive national security expertise.”

But Trump has regained his point by putting into office as acting DNI the Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who also has no experience in intelligence and who was clearly tapped to put the intelligence community under control of the White House. Grenell was vocal about his belief that Russia had not attacked us in 2016, despite the insistence of the intelligence community that it had. Grenell would have had to leave in mid-March unless Trump had nominated a new director who had not yet been confirmed. By nominating Ratcliffe, Trump had a win-win situation: either he kept Grenell or he got Ratcliffe. Either are his loyalists.

The Senate does not have to tolerate the appointment of a person who does not meet the legal requirements for the job, and whose loyalty to the president raises concerns he will not work honestly with the intelligence community that is designed to protect our national safety. But Republicans who control the Senate are unwilling to challenge the president, and, as today’s vote shows, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

The nomination now goes to the full Senate.

Ian Millhiser of Vox has been following another complicated story from Georgia, a story that extends our understanding of Republican machinations to stay in power. There, a Georgia Supreme Court justice named Keith Blackwell announced in February that he would resign from his office just before his six-year term was to end on December 31. There was supposed to be an election this month to replace Blackwell. But when he announced he was resigning, the state’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, cancelled the scheduled election.

Instead, Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who was credibly accused of rigging his own election from his position as Georgia’s secretary of state overseeing that election, will replace Blackwell for the remaining few weeks of his term. But, because the Georgia constitution says a temporary replacement appointment serves “until January 1 of the year following the next general election which is more than six months after such person’s appointment,” Kemp has claimed the right to keep Blackwell’s replacement not only for the few weeks left of his term once he retires, but also for the two years following, until after the next general election in 2022. This will keep the seat in Republican hands and essentially turn Blackwell’s six-year term into an eight-year term. Both the Republican and the Democrat running to replace Blackwell sued to reinstate the election, but today the state Supreme Court rejected their suits by a vote of 6-2.

This new understanding of vacancy provisions will enable judges from the same political party as the governor to retire just before their terms end, giving the governor the chance to replace them and keep the seat for the party for two more years than the six-year term the constitution specifies.

As I reread this, it shocks me that I initially described these stories as nothing big to pay attention to, but rather as just more evidence of patterns we already knew. Any one of these things would have been a major story in any other administration, and together they sure look like the chipping away of our democracy.

10 Likes

May 20, 2020 (Wednesday)

There was one vignette today that captured a lot more than its immediate subject.

Trump took to twitter to oppose what he said was Michigan’s recent mailing of absentee ballots to the state’s voters. “This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!” the president tweeted.

But Michigan’s secretary of state responded: “Hi! I also have a name, it’s Jocelyn Benson. And we sent applications, not ballots. Just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia.” When Trump deleted his first inaccurate tweet about ballots and corrected it in a second similar tweet, she responded: “Every Michigan registered voter has a right to vote by mail. I have the authority & responsibility to make sure that they know how to exercise this right- just like my GOP colleagues are doing in GA, IA, NE, and WV. Also, again, my name is Jocelyn Benson.”

Later today, Trump tried to threaten Nevada in a similar way. “State of Nevada ‘thinks’ that they can send out illegal vote by mail ballots, creating a great Voter Fraud scenario for the State and the U.S. They can’t! If they do, ‘I think’ I can hold up funds to the State. Sorry, but you must not cheat in elections.”

There is a lot encompassed in these tweets. Trump is running behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden in virtually every poll, and Michigan is crucial to his reelection prospects. But his problem is not mail-in ballots. Currently, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, as well as various counties in California, all have vote by mail. A mail-in system creates about a 2% increase in voting, but does not appear to benefit one party over another. Neither does it create measurable voter fraud, which remains vanishingly rare in our system. Nonetheless, Trump has concluded that the Republicans should “fight very hard” against mail-in voting, despite the coronavirus, because it “doesn’t work out well for Republicans.”

If this exchange of tweets between Trump and Benson shows that Trump is worried about his reelection prospects, it also reveals the sort of quid pro quo that was at the heart of the Ukraine scandal. His threat to withhold monies from Michigan and Nevada until they do what he wants echoes his request of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that he announce an investigation into Joe Biden’s son before getting the military support Ukraine so desperately needed. It reiterates his view of governance as merely a series of deals with a winner and a loser, a zero-sum game, rather than as an arrangement that should benefit everyone.

That being said, it is not at all clear what monies Trump was talking about. As Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar put it, “Last time I checked, the Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate money, not you. We provided $400 million to help states protect voters from this virus. A bill you signed! You can’t take money back because you think you should be the only one allowed to vote by mail.”

Klobuchar is referring to the fact that Trump, himself, along with Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and other senior members of the administration, all vote by mail. Nonetheless, Republicans are pushing the idea that mail-in voting is an attempt of Democrats to commit fraud. Texas is in the midst of a nasty legal fight over whether voters can mail-in ballots because of the coronavirus. Opponents are happy for older people-- who skew Republican–to vote by mail, but say that fear of Covid-19 is not a physical condition that would justify a mail-in ballot; it is simply an “emotional” fear and thus no excuse for wanting to avoid public polling places. The question is now before the Texas courts.

So Trump is worried about his reelection prospects and eager to attack mail-in voting that pretty clearly does not give Democrats any particular leg up, raising the possibility that he is setting himself up to accuse Michigan and Nevada of rigging the system if he loses in November. He has accused Democrats of cheating since 2016, and his language on that front has ramped up dramatically lately as his polls have fallen.

And yet, Michigan’s secretary of state called him out. Insisting on the reality that belies his narrative, she repeats: “My name is Jocelyn Benson.”

From Moby Dick’s famous beginning “Call me Ishmael” to the fear in the Harry Potter books of calling the evil Voldemort by name, invoking someone’s name makes them a power to be reckoned with. In this case, a woman doing her job, insisting on reality that interrupts Trump’s narrative, repeatedly demands that he use her name.

It’s a powerful moment. At a time when senators and government officials appear to have ceded their power to Trump, it is ordinary Americans like Jocelyn Benson, ordinary women like Jocelyn Benson, who are standing up to him. “Hi!” she wrote. “I also have a name.”

Indeed she does. That’s exactly what the president is afraid of.

15 Likes

May 21, 2020 (Thursday)

Two stories caught my attention today.

First, the day after Trump removed the State Department Inspector General, he removed yet another Inspector General, this one from the Department of Transportation. Career public servant Mitch Behm was serving as the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Transportation. He is to be replaced by Howard R. Elliott, who is the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and who will continue to hold that office while also serving as the DOT IG. The kicker of this arrangement is that in his position as the administrator of PHMSA, Elliott reports to Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Transportation. So, rather than being independent, the Inspector General would actually report to the head of the department he is supposed to be inspecting.

It appears that Inspector General Behm was on the chopping block because he was investigating Secretary Chao’s conflicts of interest. Chao is married to Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Reports had surfaced that the Department of Transportation was steering contracts to Kentucky, where McConnell is running for reelection. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Subcommittee on Government Operations, have all protested the firing and demanded documents relating to it.

Second, Trump has announced that the United States is leaving the Open Skies Treaty. This treaty permitted signatories to it to monitor each other’s military activity by plane, enabling them to keep tabs on what each other was up to and thus, theoretically, making war less likely. Trump has argued that Russia is violating the treaty by limiting flights over critical areas, and is using that as a reason to abandon the treaty. But leaving the treaty means the U.S. and its allies will have less information on Russian military activity, including—crucially-- that on the border of Ukraine, enabling Russia to increase its pressure there. Retired four-star general and former Director of the National Security Agency General Michael Hayden tweeted “This is insane. I was the director of the CIA.” Russia expert Tom Nichols replied “The Russians can’t believe it’s all gotten this easy.”

Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, notes that the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act—a law Trump signed-- requires the president to give Congress 120 days’ notice before beginning the process of withdrawal.

That’s it for tonight, folks, because I cannot hold my eyes open. See you on the flip side.

8 Likes

May 22, 2020 (Friday)

There were a number of stories today that suggest various interests are taking advantage of the Trump administration’s time in power to accomplish their own goals.

News broke this morning that when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put in place the $8.1 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia last May over the objections of Congress, he pressed State Department officials to reverse engineer a justification for the emergency declaration he intended to use. According to a State Department official who complained to the State Department’s Inspector General Steve Linick, “They seemed to have a game plan and it had to be justified.”

Last week Trump gave Congress 30 days warning that he is removing Linick, who was investigating the issue. Now congressional Democrats are demanding more information on why Pompeo declared the emergency to force through the sales. It seems to me a very good question: why was the State Department so eager to sell arms, including sensitive military technology, to Saudi Arabia, at the same time the president was downplaying the Saudi leader’s responsibility for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi?

We might well never find out, since Linick is evidently on his way out and a new Director of National Intelligence is on his way in. Today the Senate confirmed John Ratcliffe as DNI, the country’s top intelligence official, by a vote of 49-44. Ratcliffe, a Republican representative from Texas, has no experience in intelligence and is a fervent Trump loyalist.

Republicans voted in favor of the appointment, Democrats opposed it. There have been two acting DNI’s since Trump’s first nominee, Dan Coats, who was approved by the Senate in 2017 by a vote of 85-12, so this is only the second Senate vote on a DNI, but the shift from bipartisan support for Coats to a strict party line vote reveals Democratic concern over the politicization of our intelligence. Ratcliffe promised to be independent of Trump and to deliver honestly whatever intelligence he received, but he refused to confirm that he agrees with the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election or to promise to brief Congress on foreign interference in the 2020 election.

Also taking up a lot of oxygen today was the news that the White House is talking about resuming nuclear tests. The last test the United States conducted was in 1992, and restarting them would likely inspire other countries to follow suit, sparking a new arms race. The U.S. claims that Russia and China have recently deployed nuclear tests, although there is no public evidence that they have done so.

Trump has long been fascinated by nuclear weapons, and on its face, this information suggests his fascination might be manifesting itself in this new way.

But Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College who studies Russia and nuclear weapons, took to Twitter to offer a different explanation. He thinks the push to reopen testing is coming from “a group of people in industry, think tanks, the military, and consulting firms who really miss the Cold War emphasis on nukes, because it was their life’s work… and it paid well.” They have been itching to get the program up and running again, and Trump is letting them. Nichols blames this group of people, “and especially the people who allied with them in the GOP Senate” for the move to reinstate nuclear testing.

The drive of all these various groups to accomplish their own ends means they would like to see the Trump administration continue in power, and the drive to make that happen, too, was buried in a news story today.

There was much ink spilled over Trump’s declaration that he is issuing guidance that says places of worship are “essential” and should be reopened. “Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics essential, but have left out churches and houses of worship. It’s not right. So I’m correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential,” Trump told reporters. “The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now, this weekend. If they don’t do it, I will override the governors,” he said.

Pundits noted Trump’s apparent misunderstanding of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states or to the people any powers not delegated to the federal government. But my guess is that this constitutional confusion is really a non-story: Trump has no intention of actually forcing churches to open up (what would that even look like?).

More important is that this is an important signal of how vulnerable his team is feeling as we get closer to the 2020 election. Trump has counted on increasing his religious support to offset his falling popularity with suburban women. But two recent surveys have found that Trump’s popularity with white evangelicals and white Catholics has fallen by more than ten percentage points in the last month.

Hence today’s announcement.

Meanwhile, another story notes that more than half the Twitter accounts calling for a reopening of the American economy are bots. Yet another notes that as we approach 100,000 dead of Covid-19, experts warn that the death toll is actually significantly higher, as people dying at home or in nursing homes are not tested, and as early deaths were misidentified as either influenza or pneumonia.

Today’s important but scattershot stories seem to me to present a snapshot of this administration: it is providing cover for lots of interests to accomplish their own private goals, but it is becoming more unpopular with ordinary Americans every day.

8 Likes

Like the Godfather, may he meet his maker in the rose garden.

5 Likes

May 23, 2020 (Saturday)

The cover of Sunday’s New York Times was released tonight. It lists the names of 1000 Americans, dead of Covid-19. One thousand is just one percent of the number of those officially counted as dead of coronavirus we will likely hit this Memorial Day weekend.

It is “AN INCALCULABLE LOSS,” the headline reads. “They Were Not Simply Names on a List, They Were Us.”

The editors introduce the list by saying: “Numbers alone cannot possibly measure the impact of the coronavirus on America, whether it is the number of patients treated, jobs interrupted or lives cut short. As the country nears a grim milestone of 100,000 deaths attributed to the virus, The New York Times scoured more than 1,000 obituaries and death notices honoring those who died. None were mere numbers.”

Each name comes with a characteristic of the person lost: “Stanley L. Morse, 88, Stark County, Ohio, trombonist who once turned down an offer to join Duke Ellington’s orchestra;” “Jose Diaz-Ayala, 38, Palm Beach, Fla., served with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office for 14 years;” “Louvenia Henderson, 44, Tonawanda, N.Y., proud single mother of three;” “Ruth Skapinok, 85, Roseville, Calif., backyard birds were known to eat from her hand.” “Richard Passman, 94, Silver Spring, Md., rocket engineer in the early days of supersonic flight.”

This dramatic cover does more than mark a stark number. It rejects the toxic individualism embraced by a certain portion of Trump’s base. These people refuse to isolate or wear masks either because they believe the virus isn’t actually dangerous or because they insist that public health rules infringe on their liberty or because, so far, the people most likely to die have been elderly or people of color and they are not in those categories.

“It’s a personal choice,” one man told a reporter as a wealthy suburb of Atlanta reopened. “If you want to stay home, stay home. If you want to go out, you can go out. I’m not in the older population. If I was to get it now, I’ve got a 90 percent chance of getting cured. Also, I don’t know anybody who’s got it.” Another man agreed: “When you start seeing where the cases are coming from and the demographics—I’m not worried.”

The New York Times cover rejects this selfishness and reminds us that we are all in this together… or should be. At least, this has been our principle in our better moments, and some people have taken it quite seriously indeed. On Monday, Memorial Day, we will honor those young men and women who did not believe that being an American meant refusing to inconvenience themselves to help their neighbors.

Instead, to protect their fellow Americans, they laid down their lives.

12 Likes

May 24, 2020 (Sunday)

Floyston Bryant, whose nickname was “Beau,” had always stepped in as a father to his three younger sisters when their own father fell short.

In September 1942, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps. He became a Staff Sergeant in the 322nd Bomber Squadron, 91st Bomb Group, nicknamed “Wray’s Ragged Irregulars” after their commander Col. Stanley T. Wray. By the time Beau joined, the squadron was training with new B-17s at Dow Army Airfield near Bangor, Maine, and he hitchhiked three hours home before deploying to England so he could see his family once more.

It would be the last time. The 91st Bomb group was a pioneer bomb group, figuring out tactics for air cover. By May 1943, it was experienced enough to lead the Eighth Air Force as it sought to establish air superiority over Europe. But the 91st did not have adequate fighter support until 1944. It had the greatest casualty rate of any of the heavy bomb squadrons.

Beau was one of the casualties. On August 12, 1943, while he was on a mission, enemy flak cut his oxygen line and he died before the plane could make it back to base. He was buried in Cambridge, England, at the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial, the military cemetery for Americans killed in action during WWII. He was twenty years old.

I grew up with Beau’s nephews and nieces, and we made decades of havoc and memories. But Beau’s children weren’t there, and neither he nor they are part of the memories.

His sisters are all gone now, along with almost all of their friends. We are all getting older, and soon no one will be left who even remembers his name.

When Beau was a teenager, he once spent a week’s paycheck on a dress for his middle sister, so she could go to a dance.

I wish you all a meaningful Memorial Day.

12 Likes

May 25, 2020 (Monday)

It has been a relatively quiet Memorial Day weekend. That being said, an overview of the news suggests there were some important optics this weekend.

Trump took to Twitter with a vengeance, but that frantic tweeting looked desperate rather than commanding. He tweeted or retweeted messages insulting female politicians; insisting that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine-- which has been associated with higher death rates for Covid-19 patients-- has “tremendous rave reviews”; attacking his former Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (did you know that was Jeff Sessions’s real name?), and claiming falsely that mail-in ballots will rig the upcoming election.

He threatened to pull the August Republican National Convention from North Carolina if Democratic Governor Roy Cooper won’t guarantee that the event can be held at full capacity, despite coronavirus restrictions. The RNC is under contract to hold the convention in Charlotte, but Trump has talked about moving the event, wondering aloud to aides why it can’t be held in a hotel ballroom in Florida.

Most dramatically, though, he went on a Twitter crusade against television show host Joe Scarborough, tweeting inaccurately, and with no evidence, that Scarborough murdered a young woman in 2001. The 28-year-old woman to whom he was referring was working in a local office of then-Florida Representative Scarborough, with whom she had virtually no contact, when a heart condition caused her to fall and hit her head. There was no sign of a struggle or anyone else with her; the medical examiner concluded that she died of natural causes.

It all just looked mean and self-serving and small, and as if he had given up on appealing to any but the radical conspiracy theorists who make up his base. Some of them are listening: although at the end of April, 81% of Kentucky residents approved of Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, on Sunday protestors in Kentucky hung an effigy of Beshear from a tree limb at a mock lynching at the state capitol. They attached to the effigy’s shirt a piece of paper that said “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” the same motto John Wilkes Booth shouted in 1865 when he murdered President Abraham Lincoln, and the same words that were on the t-shirt Timothy McVeigh wore in 1995 when he set the bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City that killed at least 168 people and injured more than 680 others.

But while some are emboldened by Trump’s rhetoric, others recognize that his vitriol has become unhinged and that Americans are turning against it, and him. In response to Trump’s tweets about Scarborough, Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) tweeted: “Completely unfounded conspiracy. Just stop. Stop spreading it, stop creating paranoia. It will destroy us.”

While Trump tweeted, ordinary Americans grappled instead with the realities of reopening state economies on a long weekend that usually marks the start of summer, but that this year is filled with uncertainty.

They were remembering our soldiers, sailors, and airwomen and airmen, killed in the line of duty.

And over everything hung the pall of almost 100,000 dead from the novel coronavirus. Covid-19 has now taken more American lives than the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan, combined.

That grim milestone coincided with Trump’s return to the golf course, prompting opponents to circulate on social media pictures of the president golfing superimposed over the New York Times cover listing 1000 of our dead. It was a dramatic image, and one that I’m shocked his advisors didn’t see coming and work to head off by convincing him not to hit the links on this particular weekend.

Today, the president laid a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery and spoke at Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Baltimore’s mayor, Bernard C. “Jack” Young had asked the president not to come to the locked down city to avoid modeling non-essential travel and costing the city money it could not afford as the pandemic has wiped out tax revenues. Trump went despite Young’s objections. Neither he nor Vice President Pence wore a mask during their visit.

In contrast, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden went out in public for the first time since mid-March to lay a wreath at the Delaware Memorial Bridge Veteran’s Memorial Park. He and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, wore black masks and stayed six feet from the veterans with whom they spoke. “Never forget the sacrifices that these men and women made,” Biden told reporters. “Never, ever, forget.”

Biden’s oldest son, who died of a brain tumor in 2015, served in Iraq.

10 Likes

May 26, 2020 (Tuesday)

While a lot went on today, the day’s biggest news is that Twitter fact-checked two tweets by the president.

As states have turned to mail-in ballots to enable voting in a time when in person voting endangers lives, Trump has repeatedly attacked the idea of mail-in ballots, claiming they are designed to enable Democrats to cheat. Today he announced: “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone……” “…. living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!”

The truth is that Trump’s tweets are false, and are likely designed to pave the way for him to undermine the election if he loses. There is no evidence that mail-in ballots cause fraud, California will send mail-in ballots only to registered voters, five states already vote entirely by mail, and all states offer some form of mail-in voting.

Tonight, Twitter put warnings on the president’s tweets, telling users to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” “These Tweets contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots,” a Twitter spokesman told the magazine The Hill. Clicking on the warning leads to a page that explains the factual errors in Trump’s tweets, and to articles about the issue from fact based sources.

Trump did not take kindly to being fact-checked. “[Twitter] is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,” he tweeted. “They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake news CNN and the Amazon Washington Post…. Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

The First Amendment to the Constitution concerns government power: it guarantees that the government cannot police what Americans say. It does not deal with private limits to speech, and Twitter is a private company. As Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe points out, Trump has this backward: Twitter’s flag on Trump’s tweets is itself protected under the First Amendment. In addition, Twitter’s flag is protected because it is demonstrably true.

Until last March, Twitter refused to fact check misinformation from world leaders. The pandemic forced a reckoning, and it announced it would remove posts, even from world leaders, if they went “against guidance from authoritative sources of global and public health information.” Since then, it has begun to enforce some rules against leaders, including labeling as manipulated an anti-Biden ad that Trump retweeted.

It has since expanded its willingness to note misinformation into areas other than the novel coronavirus.

The popular social media platform policed the president’s tweets today after the widower of a woman who died in 2001, and who is now at the center of Trump’s attempts to smear critic Joe Scarborough, begged Twitter to remove Trump’s tweets involving his wife. “I’m asking you to intervene in this instance because the President of the United States has taken something that does not belong to him — the memory of my dead wife — and perverted it for perceived political gain,” the woman’s husband wrote in a letter to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter.

Twitter’s moderators responded that the company was “deeply sorry about the pain these statements, and the attention they are drawing, are causing the family.” But it did not agree to remove the tweets. Instead, it said, “We’ve been working to expand existing product features and policies so we can more effectively address things like this going forward, and we hope to have those changes in place shortly.”

Hours later, it fact-checked two of the president’s tweets for the first time.

Twitter remains the president’s favorite place to present his own version of the world to his followers. Until now, he has been able to say whatever he wants, without contradiction, setting the terms of the news cycle without pushback from journalists in real time. Losing that freedom to push propaganda would devastate Trump.

Still, Twitter apparently fact-checked his tweets on mail-in ballots because they appear directly to threaten the 2020 election. But its moderators left unchecked the rest of the disinformation coming from his account today.

9 Likes

May 27, 2020 (Wednesday)

Today Trump’s reaction to Twitter fact-checking him was so extreme that #TrumpMeltdown trended on Twitter. This morning, to his audience of more than 80 million, he tweeted: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices [sic]. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen….” Then he went on to reiterate that mail-in ballots would “be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots.”

This evening, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Trump would be signing an executive order pertaining to social media companies, although just what that might look like is unclear. Brian Fung, CNN’s technology reporter, says that the White House did not consult the Federal Communications Commission about the forthcoming executive order, suggesting that the order has not gone through the normal review process.

This means that any executive order he issues—if he issues one—is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Rather than actually affecting the law, he is likely simply trying to pressure Twitter into leaving his own disinformation unchallenged. It is also likely he is eager to change the subject to anything other than our growing numbers of Americans dead of Covid-19. (None of his tweets today acknowledged our dead.)

Finally, he is seeing what can he get away with. Will he be able to bully Twitter’s moderators into leaving his own disinformation unchecked?

The question of what Trump can get away with, how far he can move the goalposts for his own campaign, was in the news tonight over another issue, as well. In the past two months, Trump has cleaned house of five inspectors general. By law, though, he cannot fire them cleanly; he has to give Congress thirty days notice so it can prevent the president from firing an inspector general because of an investigation.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has a reputation as a protector of inspectors general, led a number of other senators to question Trump’s removal of Intelligence Community IG Michael Atkinson. Atkinson was the one who alerted Congress when the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire withheld from it the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, asking Zelensky to announce an investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The senators demanded that Trump provide evidence of “clear, substantial reasons for removal.” When Trump then axed State Department IG Steve Linick, who was investigating Secretary of State Pompeo, Grassley followed up with another letter, again demanding an explanation, and noting that the president’s replacements for the fired men must not be partisan hacks.

Yesterday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded with a letter that simply said Trump had the right to fire IGs. It noted other instances when presidents had done so: Reagan when he fired thirteen IGs and President Obama when he fired one. But the comparisons are false. Reagan’s action came before the 2008 law that made IGs nonpolitical, and Obama did, indeed, provide to Congress a convincing justification for why the Americorps IG could no longer do his job.

Trump is, once again, solidifying his power in the Executive Branch, refusing to acknowledge that Congress has any role in his oversight, despite the fact that congressional oversight has been an accepted part of our constitutional system since America’s first president, George Washington, agreed to hand over executive documents to Congress in his first term.

But, so far, Republicans in the Senate have refused to check Trump in any way. Grassley has said the White House’s answer is “insufficient,” and that it had failed to meet the legal requirement for telling Congress why it was dismissing an inspector general. But while Grassley opened a full investigation into President Obama’s dismissal of acting Americorps inspector general Gerald Walpin in 2009, in this case, Grassley appears to be backing off. Rather than launching an investigation, or blocking Trump’s nominees until Trump actually responds to his letters, the 86-year-old senator so far is simply saying he is developing new legislation that will prevent political appointees from serving as inspectors general. Pretty weak sauce.

But there has been one surprise in Congress lately. New Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) appears to be following the lead of former chair Richard Burr (R-NC), trying to retain the committee’s independence from Trump.

The president wants Republicans to bolster his reelection campaign by investigating Hunter Biden and attacking those who revealed Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, and most of the Senate Republicans have gone along. The head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ron Johnson (R-WI), is conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukraine energy company, Burisma, providing the investigation Trump tried to pressure Zelensky into announcing. And at Trump’s urging, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, an investigation that will likely lead to subpoenas for former Obama officials to testify over the summer.

But Rubio is not on board with Trump’s vague “Obamagate” claims, and has warned his colleagues not to amplify current Russian disinformation. “I’m not going to accuse any member who believes that they are exercising oversight to be colluding with a foreign power,” Rubio said. “I will say to you that I think it’s pretty clear that the Russians are constantly pursuing narratives that they believe will drive conflict in our politics and divide us against each other.”

This is of interest because Rubio is young, just 49, and clearly interested in a presidential run after Trump. He is making a gamble that defying the president, rather than bowing to him, will give him a brighter political future.

8 Likes

May 28, 2020 (Thursday)

The coronavirus pandemic has ripped the remaining tatters of cover off this country’s racial inequality as black Americans are dying in much higher numbers than white Americans. Racial inequality is not new, but racial brutality has become more and more obvious in the past several years as cell phones have recorded the deaths of black Americans at the hands of authorities or white Americans who took it upon themselves to police their black neighbors.

On Monday night, a Minneapolis police officer killed a handcuffed man, George Floyd, by kneeling on his neck for ten minutes as other officers either held him down or looked away. It took only five minutes for Floyd, who had initially begged “Please, please. I can’t breathe,” to stop moving. A passerby captured the murder on video, and it has been widely shared on social media.

Last night, in Minneapolis, and then Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and Manhattan, protesters took to the streets. In Minnesota, the protests turned into riots and looting after police greeted the protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets. This morning, after two nights of violent protests, the U.S. Department of Justice said it would make a federal investigation into the killing a “top priority.” Tonight, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) called in the state’s National Guard to keep the peace.

It didn’t work: as I write, it appears the Minneapolis precinct police department whose officers were involved in the murder is on fire. Police are reporting that 170 businesses in St. Paul have been damaged and dozens of fires have been set. Protests have spread to Phoenix, Arizona, and to Louisville, Kentucky, too, where 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed in her home on March 13 by plainclothes police executing a warrant for a man who lived in a different part of Louisville and had already been arrested.

Historically, political rioting in America is an attempt to call attention to a perceived injustice. In its aftermath, ordinary citizens decide whether or not the rioting was justified. Usually, they support social justice movements and shut down reactionary mobs.

When associated with a political riot, looting takes on a political meaning as well. If a population feels that the law is oppressing them—as it did for African Americans during slavery times, for example—they often break the law deliberately to illustrate their opposition to it (as African American abolitionists did in the years before the Civil War). There are always bad eggs in any mob scene, but in this case the larger story of the looting, after an event where an officer of the law murdered an unresisting man in full view of an audience, demonstrating his sense of untouchability, falls into a pretty well established historical pattern.

Crucially, white Americans are finally paying attention to the violence against the black community. I suspect the reason for this attention is that the current leadership of the Republican Party has gone so far toward consolidating power in favor of an oligarchy that ordinary white Americans are identifying with marginalized people. This is precisely what happened in the 1850s, when even desperately racist white Americans pushed back against the elite slave owners taking control of the American government because they recognized that they, too, could be sacrificed if leaders thought they stood in the way of the economic system that enriched a few.

Another story from last night illustrates exactly this point, showing the lengths to which Republican leaders are willing to go to achieve their legislative goals. In Pennsylvania, a member of the state legislature tested positive for Covid-19. He told his Republican colleagues, who engaged in appropriate quarantining and distancing, but neither they nor the Republican House Speaker, Mike Turzai, told the Democrats, who learned much later that one of their colleagues had tested positive for coronavirus from a reporter.

People outside the legislature learned of the situation last night, when Democratic Representative Brian Sims posted a passionate video on Twitter, angrily calling out his Republican colleagues for putting lives at risk. Sims revealed that he had recently donated a kidney to a patient dying of kidney failure, putting him at particularly high risk of contracting the coronavirus. His outrage that his Republican colleagues would keep such vital information from him and his Democratic colleagues, in order to make sure their goal of reopening the state did not falter, resonated. The idea that Republicans who, theoretically, were supposed to be working with Democrats for the good of Pennsylvanians, would deliberately endanger the life of a man who had secretly donated a kidney seemed the epitome of partisanship gone toxic.

More stories today illustrated that the Republicans are determined to cement their ideology into law no matter what voters want. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told judges over 65 that they should consider retiring to make sure Trump could fill their seats. “This is an historic opportunity. We’ve put over 200 federal judges on the bench. I think 1 in 5 federal judges are Trump appointees. … So if you’re a circuit judge in your mid-60s, late 60s, you can take senior status; now would be a good time to do that if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center. This is a good time to do it,” Graham added.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats released a report examining how Republican leaders, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have packed the courts. Funded by millions of dollars of “dark money” contributions, they are “rolling back the clock on civil rights, consumer protections, and the rights of ordinary Americans, reliably putting a thumb on the scale in favor of corporate and Republican political interests.” The report notes that the House has passed more than 350 bills this session, nearly 90% of which are bi-partisan and popular, but that McConnell has refused to take them up, focusing instead on judicial confirmations. This “judicial capture” is designed to rewrite federal law “to favor the rich and powerful.”

Their point had another illustration today, when we learned that Marc Short, Vice President Pence’s chief of staff, owns between $500,000 and $1.5 million worth of stocks in companies linked to the administration’s pandemic response, in apparent disregard for the law.

But it appears that ordinary Americans have had enough. CNN reported today that GOP operatives are afraid that Trump will both lose the White House and tank the Republican Senate majority in 2020, something borne out by Graham’s call for older judges to retire and be replaced by partisan Republicans while they know they can be.

Knowing that the economic crisis is hurting the president’s chances of reelection, the White House announced today that it will not release the usual economic forecast this summer. Those projections would show the skyrocketing unemployment and ballooning deficit shortly before the election.

Symbolically, it also appears that the anti-maskers are losing ground to those advocating mask wearing. While Trump still refuses to wear one, McConnell, and FNC personality Sean Hannity, among others, have called for wearing masks to help contain the coronavirus.

And finally, Trump’s executive order today attempting to clamp down on social media so that it will not fact-check his inaccurate tweets about the election seem designed not to change policy—legal analysts say it will not withstand legal challenges—but to continue to push the idea that there is a grand conspiracy against him and his supporters. A Washington D.C. District Judge appointed by Trump threw out a lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook today, that claimed they were biased against right-wing users.

Trump’s executive order will shore up his supporters’ sense of grievance, and add more fuel to the argument he seems to be preparing: that any election he loses must be “rigged.”

10 Likes

There are always bad eggs in any mob scene, but in this case the larger story of the looting, after an event where an officer of the law murdered an unresisting man in full view of an audience, demonstrating his sense of untouchability, falls into a pretty well established historical pattern.

Another pretty well established pattern:

12 Likes

I sincerely hope there are someones out there recording these and protecting them for posterity. This woman is a national treasure!

14 Likes

Isn’t she just?

The lucidity of her daily summaries both astounds and stabilizes (and sometimes frightens) me. The frequent historical context is of course also great.

:+1:

16 Likes

May 29, 2020 (Friday)

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

America feels completely chaotic today. Protesters are marching in major cities, sometimes looting; police appear to be attacking them and the journalists covering the protests. Rather than calming the situation, the president has thrown gasoline on the fire, which escalated yesterday’s fight with Twitter. Trump launched a blistering verbal attack on China and announced that the United States is withdrawing from the World Health Organization in the midst of a deadly pandemic. Meanwhile, new information suggests that the Trump administration did, indeed, collude with Russia.

George Floyd is dead. So is Breonna Taylor. And so are more than 100,000 victims of a deadly pandemic.

The news is overwhelming. It is designed to be overwhelming.

This sort of chaos and confusion destabilizes society. In that confusion, as tempers run hot, people who are desperate for certainty return to old patterns and divide along traditional lines. Many are willing to accept a strong leader who promises to restore order, or simply are so distracted and discouraged they stop caring what their leaders do. They simply hunker down and try to survive.

As cities across the country erupted in protest last night over the murder of George Floyd and everything that deadly demonstration of white male dominance over another human’s life symbolized, Trump tweeted: “….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

Twitter slapped a warning on the tweet, noting that it “violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.” In response, the official White House twitter account retweeted what Trump had written… and Twitter slapped a warning on that, too. This is the first time Twitter has attached such a notice to any public figure’s tweets.

This afternoon, Trump appeared briefly in the Rose Garden not to address the protests, but to attack China and to announce he was withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO.

Trump accused China of a slew of misdeeds, including espionage and economic warfare, and called China an existential threat. He promised to ban certain Chinese nationals from the U.S., but identified no concrete measures he’s planning to take.

It seems Trump has decided his best bet for reelection is to use China as a foil. He is trying to blame China for America’s mounting coronavirus deaths, which is his excuse for withdrawing from the WHO, over which he insists China has “total control.” (This is false; the WHO has 194 member states, and until now, we were a leading partner in it.) He left without taking any questions.

Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO removes America from yet another international partnership. This horrified doctors and epidemiologists. Health researcher Dr. Atul Gawande called it a “disaster.” “I can’t imagine a worse thing to do in the midst of a pandemic and ongoing work to fight back TB, HIV, polio, and other health threats,” he tweeted. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice agreed: “Unspeakably stupid and self-defeating.”

Defense technology journalist Kelsey D. Atherton made a different, and quite crucial, point. “[M]aybe the weirdest thing about the right’s strategy of quitting international institutions is they were built, expressly, to give the United States an outsized role in shaping and directing the post-1945 international order, but they can only do that so long as the US stays in.”

He’s right. Once again, Trump has led the US out of an international agreement that we used to dominate. Just two days ago, president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass said that Trump’s foreign policy doctrine should be called the “Withdrawal Doctrine.” Trump has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact designed to pressure China to meet international rules; the Paris climate accord; the 2015 Iran nuclear deal; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, limiting nuclear weapons; UNESCO, the U.N.’s educational, scientific, and cultural agency; the Open Skies Treaty that allowed countries to fly over each other to monitor military movements. He pulled U.S. troops away from our former Kurdish allies in Syria, and has threatened to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—NATO—that ties 30 North American and European countries into a military alliance.

Now he has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization that combats global disease and pandemics.

The U.S. walking away from our former allies benefits other countries, notably Russia, which is keen to destabilize NATO alliances.

The Russia story, too, is back in the news, with Trump’s new Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe today releasing summaries of the phone calls between Michael Flynn—who was advising Trump on foreign policy—and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. What was released were not transcripts, although Senator Chuck Grassley, who released them, and much of the media that reported on them, all called them transcripts. These are summaries of the conversations. Occasionally they have quotations in them, but they are not the whole conversation.

Even so, they were bad enough. They show Flynn taking a weirdly weak position considering he knew the Russians had attacked the election. Rather than making demands, Flynn reassured Kislyak that the Trump team would roll back sanctions and retaliation for Russian interference in the 2016 election, established that Trump and Putin would talk immediately upon Trump taking office, and talked about a secure video link between the two leaders.

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI counterintelligence specialist, explained back in 2017 that Flynn’s lying to the FBI indicated just how bad the conversations were, and then explained just why they were so bad. For the U.S. to expel a diplomat is exceedingly rare and difficult, and usually results in a tit-for-tat expulsion of one of our diplomats. In both cases, the individuals usually are spies, which means that losing them is a big deal for our intelligence. For the Obama administration to expel 35 Russians in response to Russia’s attack on our 2016 election, along with imposing economic sanctions, was a microphone-dropping sign to Russia that we would not look the other way.

But Flynn assured Kislyak that they could expect a different response from the Trump administration, essentially telling Russia that, so far as the Trump team was concerned, the 2016 attack was okay. So the Russians did not retaliate as expected for the expulsion of their diplomats. But Trump could not get rid of the sanctions and instead, in July 2017, under great pressure, signed a bipartisan sanctions bill that had such strong support Congress could override his veto. In retaliation for the measure, Russia expelled 775 American diplomats, crippling our intelligence in that country.

And over all this looms Covid-19, which has killed more than 104,000 of us already. Infections are climbing again.

I started out tonight by noting that this chaotic onslaught of news is designed to divide Americans and make us fall back into old animosities in order either to get us to accept a strong leader or to exhaust us until we quit caring what happens. In either case American democracy is over.

But there is another possibility. Chaos does not have to destroy us. The leaders creating it are doing so precisely because they know they are not in control, and the same uncertainty they are trying to leverage can just as easily be used by their opponents. At this crazy, frightening, chaotic moment, it is possible to reach across old lines and create new alliances, to reemphasize that most Americans really do share the same values of economic fairness and equality before the law, and to rebuild a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The old world is certainly dying, but the shape of the new world struggling to be born is not yet determined.

12 Likes

She is doing so by going through substax as well as I’m sure collecting these herself for possible publication later? She is an academic after all!

Right? This is why historians need to be valued and be a part of our public conversations, because a good historian can ground events of today into an understandable narrative that help us to understand not just the what, but they why and the how. Unfortunately, I’m guessing the oncoming depression is going to gut most of our public colleges and universities and the first things to go are going to be the “unnecessary” humanities and social sciences, because “who can get a job with a history degree.” And of course, we’ll be less likely to be able to GET jobs as historians because the primary place we work will be gutted and more actively hostile to the work we do.

In short, I picked the worst time to get a phd in history! :sweat_smile:

18 Likes