October 29, 2018



America Transfers Wealth Under Cover of Racism.


Metropolitan Museum of Art/© 2017 Estate of Robert Colescott/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/Art Resource, NY
Robert Colescott: Knowledge of the Past Is the Key to the Future: Some Afterthoughts on Discovery, 1986; from ‘Figuring History,’ a recent exhibition at the Seattle Art Museum. The catalog is edited by Catharina Manchanda and includes essays by Jacqueline Francis and Lowery Stokes Sims. It is published by the museum and Yale University Press.
You don’t necessarily need an ethnic or religious scapegoat to be a thuggish strongman, but it sure helps. Narendra Modi rose to power in India in a party that has long demonized Muslims—and after doing conspicuously little to stop a massacre of them while running his home state of Gujarat. Viktor Orbán in Hungary has variously attacked Jews, Gypsies, and Arab and African refugees. And where would Donald Trump be without his fusillade of invective against Mexicans, Muslims, and black Americans?
Barack Obama’s two terms as president allowed too many of us to think that the worst, at least, of the dark current of racism in America had run its course. But the election of the man who opened his campaign with an attack on Mexican “rapists” has made us realize otherwise. This is someone who, after one Latino and four black teenagers were arrested in 1989 and charged with assaulting and raping a white woman in Central Park, took out full-page newspaper ads urging the death penalty for such crimes. And who, years later, after DNA tests and someone else’s confession cleared the five, declared them still guilty. The Trump presidency’s decades-long roots in race-baiting have at least had the virtue of shocking several new books into being, one of them superb.
Image result for Ben Fountain
Ben Fountain
Anyone who has read Ben Fountain’s previous work knows him as one of the boldest voices in American fiction. His 2012 novel, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, is a hilarious, excoriating, brilliantly structured send-up of the madness and hype of George W. Bush’s wars. It takes place entirely during the halftime show at a Dallas Cowboys football game, seen through the eyes of a teenaged, traumatized, sex-obsessed soldier as he and his squadmates, between stretches of combat in Iraq, are used as part of the show. An earlier volume of short stories, Brief Encounters with Che Guevara, probes our national psyche in a different way. Almost every tale is about an American who, through idealism, bravado, or naiveté, manages to get in over his or her head in some part of the global South.
Image result for Beautiful Country Burn AgainFountain’s new book, Beautiful Country Burn Again, based in part on his reporting of the last presidential campaign for The Guardian, is about an entire country that got in over its head. A meandering, shaggy monster of a book, it’s too long (skip the interchapter month-by-month summaries of the news events of 2016), and its first half—brilliant reporting from the campaign trail—feels only loosely joined to the second, a pained cry from the heart about the many decades of history that have led to the pickle we’re in. But in different ways both halves are dazzling.
The novelist’s gifts that so inspired Billy Lynn are on full display. Here, for instance, is Fountain describing Cornel West warming up a crowd for Bernie Sanders:
Tonight he is dressed in his trademark three-piece black suit with dark scarf, white shirt, and black tie, the French cuffs of his shirt sticking out so far and bright they might as well be sodium flares. In that suit, with his gray-streaked Afro and facial hair like Spanish moss, he looks less like a man of the twenty-first century than a fire-and-brimstone preacher and part-time potion doctor hurled out of the 1890s….
“Brothers and sisters of all colors in Iowa are you ready to make history on Monday n-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght!” he thunders like God’s own MC…. The kids go nuts….
The kids have never seen anything like Cornel West with his flailing arms and incandescent French cuffs and the rock-drill delivery of his voice, every syllable banging home with the hard ratta-tatta of a speed bag or a Gatling gun. He could be Great-Granddaddy Hip-Hop, the original guy up there in the pulpit from whom everything and everybody flowed, blues, jazz, soul, skiffle, R&B, rock & roll, funk, punk, rap, ska, and whatever comes next. The root of it all.
 Image result for Hillary ClintonFountain applies the same zestful paintbrush everywhere. On Hillary Clinton: “With the years has come a kind of dreadnought presence, queen of the fleet, thick armor plating and heavy guns. She can take the hits—has anyone in American politics taken more these past thirty years?—and plow ahead.” On her and Bill: “If every marriage is unknowable from the outside, theirs is the Mariana Trench of marital mystery.” On Reince Priebus: “The thousand-yard stare of a mall cop whose Segway is in the shop.” On Alex Jones of Infowars: “A chesty fellow with a booming depth charge of a voice reminiscent of the pro-wrestling school of public speaking.” On the Democratic National Convention: “Ten hours or more a day of droning and soaring.”
Fountain lives in Dallas and spares nothing in evoking his fellow Texan Ted Cruz. When bettered in a debate, “Cruz, blushing, could only smile with a pants-around-his-ankles sort of squinch to his face.” He speaks
in urgent, breathy tones of preacherly sanctimony, his voice dropping as it nears the end of every thought, digging for the tremble, the hushed vibrato of ultimate virtue. You’d think he gargles twice a day with a cocktail of high-fructose corn syrup and holy-roller snake oil. His tone and cadence take after the saccharine blather of the great Christian pitchmen of radio and TV, the hucksters who mastered the catch in the throat, the tremulous quaver and gulp, because as every pro knows that’s where the money is…. There’s a schlumpy fleshiness to him, a blurring of definition in his face and neck, the little knob of his chin dangling like a boiled quail egg. His skin reads soft, smooth, the skin of an avid indoorsman.
And then, of course, there’s the tanned man with the orange hair himself, with his “reverse raccoon eyes, circles of white around his orbital sockets like a pair of headlights stuck on high beam,” “the seamless weave of silk and steel in his pitch,” and “his smile as toothy-wide as TR posing with a slaughtered animal. He sucks up the free-floating energy of the crowd, what’s static in them becomes kinetic in him and he’ll be riding high for the next rally, a man like this won’t run out of gas till the day he dies.” Trump’s speech accepting the nomination is
the rhetorical equivalent of suburban sprawl. ISIS was here, murderous migrants over there, political correctness, the rigged system, and “international humiliation” plunked down there there and there like strip malls scattered about a mishmash of housing developments. You could have moved chunks of the speech around like so many interchangeable parts or even reversed the order entirely with no noticeable effect.
Why did more than 60 million Americans—many of them good people, people wise in other aspects of life, people who should know better—vote for him? “What is it,” Fountain asks, “about the American character that allows the long con of our politics to go on and on…? We must, on some level, want what they’re offering.”
He gives a marvelous portrait, for instance, of “Pappy” O’Daniel, a Texan of the 1930s who charmed radio listeners with gospel readings, country music, sentimental poetry, and commercials for his company, Hillbilly Flour. (Filmgoers may remember Charles Durning playing him in the Coen brothers’ 2000 movie O Brother, Where Art Thou?) In 1938 O’Daniel was elected governor on the campaign theme of “Pass the Biscuits, Pappy.” His platform? “The Ten Commandments, no sales tax, and a guaranteed pension of $30 a month for every Texan over the age of sixty-five.” He plugged Hillbilly Flour at every stop, and sales doubled during his campaign. Once he was in office, however, he pushed for a sales tax, an amendment to the state constitution to freeze taxes on oil and gas extraction at rock-bottom rates, and spent his time attacking Communists, Nazis, and “labor leader racketeers.” The oilmen and bankers who had backed him got what they paid for, but working-class people continued to vote for him in such numbers that in a special election for the US Senate in 1941 he defeated a candidate who might have served them better, a youthful New Deal backer, Lyndon Johnson. Remind you of anybody?
Image result for Sarah Churchwell in Behold, America.What are such bait-and-switch con men offering?Above all, messages, once overt, then coded, today starkly overt again, about race. Fountain has a lot to say about this, as, in a more muted and academic way, does Sarah Churchwell in Behold, America. Her study of the changing meanings of the “American Dream” and “America First” has the aura of too much time spent in the searchable databases of old newspapers now temptingly available to us, and too little listening to the voices of real people, whether on the campaign trail or anywhere else. Nonetheless, despite a sea of quotations from everything from the Corvallis Gazette to the Wichita Daily Eagle, it’s clear where Churchwell’s political passion is, and her detailed genealogy of “America First” becomes, indirectly, something of a history of twentieth-century American racism.
Before Trump picked it up, the most common association of the phrase was with the America First Committee, a curious amalgam of pacifists and right-wingers that, before Pearl Harbor, opposed American entry into World War II. But the phrase had been used by many a politician before then, often with racial overtones. In 1920, for instance, Senator James Reed of Missouri praised “our Anglo-Saxon fathers” when he addressed an America First Thanksgiving rally in Madison Square Garden. And most significantly, the words were embraced by the Ku Klux Klan as it came back to life after a long hiatus. “The ABC of the Klan is America First,” began a Klan circular widely distributed in 1921, a few years before the organization reached its all-time peak of political influence.1 The Klan was still using the slogan—emblazoning it on commemorative coins, for example—in the 1960s and 1970s.
“For the Klan,” writes Churchwell, “‘America first’ offered a fig leaf: a xenophobia that was socially and politically acceptable was covering for a vigilante racism that was (at least officially) not.” But everyone knew what the fig leaf covered. At least four thousand black people were lynched in the United States between 1877 and 1950. Not all of them were in the South. In 1922, a black man seen kissing a white woman barely escaped being killed by a mob in midtown Manhattan.
Where, then, does this deep American racial fury, so skillfully manipulated by Donald Trump’s jut-browed scowl, come from? Churchwell reminds us of how white Americans, no matter how poor, have long been compensated with what W.E.B. Du Bois called the “public and psychological wage” of being white. “White laborers,” he wrote, “were convinced that the degradation of Negro labor was more fundamental than the uplift of white labor.” Fountain quotes another distinguished black writer, James Baldwin, making essentially the same point: “The contempt with which American leaders treat American blacks is very obvious; what is not so obvious is that they treat the bulk of the American people with the very same contempt. But it will be sub-zero weather in a very distant August when the American people find the guts to recognize this fact.”
It is Fountain who gives the most extensive and deeply felt account of how politicians have so long blown on the coals of that fury. “The GOP and a certain kind of Democrat,” he writes, “claimed to have the backs of racially aggrieved white voters, then busily filled those backs with knives when it came to money matters,” by giving tax and regulatory favors to the wealthiest. The second half of his book is basically a survey of just how this happened. He begins in 1948, the year Harry Truman ended segregation in the US armed forces and the Democratic National Convention adopted a strong plank against all forms of racial discrimination: “That was enough to bring the devil howling out of his hole, that foot-on-the-neck-of-the-black-man devil of the Jim Crow, hookworm, lynch-prone South.” Some southern Democrats bolted from the party, and their Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond won four states in that fall’s election. The national Democratic Party was cowed, but then came the 1950s: the Brown v. Board of Education decision, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Freedom Rides to desegregate bus stations, a reborn civil rights movement. “Devil stamped his feet, sniffed the air,” writes Fountain.

Racism then boiled over at the 1964 Republican National Convention: black delegates were shoved, cursed, and spat on, and Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the civil rights bill emboldened the party’s Southern Caucus, which nicknamed its convention hotel “Fort Sumter.” With Goldwater as their candidate, that fall the Republicans for the first time won the votes of a majority of white southerners.
Goldwater lost, of course, but that just meant that “what was needed was white backlash with a kinder, gentler face,” what today we call dog-whistle politics. Fountain quotes Republican consigliere Lee Atwater summing it up: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights and all that.” This worked brilliantly for Richard Nixon.
Image result for Republican consigliere Lee AtwaterThen along came Reagan, who “knew that devil well; knew him and paid him court on his home turf.” This happened when, for his first major speech as the 1980 Republican nominee, Reagan chose the Neshoba County Fair, near Philadelphia, Mississippi. This was a mere five miles away from the spot where, sixteen years earlier, three civil rights workers had been kidnapped, shot, and buried, one of them still alive, by a Ku Klux Klan posse that included the county sheriff. Reagan spoke about “states’ rights” and never mentioned the martyred trio or said anything for or against the battle for justice in which they died. “That screaming silence, that was a dog whistle too.”
And so the devil got himself happily embedded deep in the heart of the Republican Party. Whenever needed, there would be another toot on the dog whistle—for example, George H.W. Bush’s notorious Willie Horton campaign commercial in 1988. And when Trump appeared, he gave no more sly whistles but a string of all-frequencies blasts: from lambasting as un-American black football players protesting police killings to praising “some very fine people on both sides” at the clash over the 2017 rally attended by Klan members and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. Scarcely a week goes by now without something we can add to the list. Trump has circled the wagons around the white tribe.
One of the strengths of Beautiful Country Burn Again is that it spares nothing in showing how the Democrats, too, making use of hints and code words, have danced with that devil. Some of this is familiar territory: Bill Clinton’s campaign to “end welfare as we know it,” or the way he and congressional Democrats tried to outdo the Republicans in being tough on crime. One episode is particularly stunning, and Fountain not only tells the story but illustrates it with a photograph.2 In his 1992 primary campaign, just before southern states voted on Super Tuesday, Clinton did something just as blatant as Reagan’s Mississippi speech. He and three Georgia politicians appeared at the state’s Stone Mountain Correctional Institution, standing in front of a mass of inmates, almost all of them black, lined up in formation in all-white prison uniforms like a regiment of captive chefs. (“He’s saying,” commented Jerry Brown, “we’ve got ’em under control, folks.”)
Arthur Tress Photo Archive
Texan supporters of Barry Goldwater at the Republican National Convention, July 1964; photograph by Arthur Tress from his book San Francisco 1964, 2012
But this was far more than a tough-on-crime photo op. For the granite face of nearby Stone Mountain bears giant bas reliefs, larger than the carvings at Mount Rushmore, of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis. It is also the spot where, in 1915, a giant cross was lit to mark the rebirth of the Klan. No wonder that, in his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King said, “Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.” What would he have thought of Bill Clinton dog-whistling from that spot three decades later?
Image result for Hitler’s American Model, James Q. WhitmanAn eerie sidelight to American devilry comes from Hitler’s American Model, James Q. Whitman’s study of people who didn’t bother about dog-whistling. The Nazis were nothing if not legalistic, and as they were crafting anti-Jewish measures during their first few years in power they looked carefully at the United States for models of race law. The American example was referred to repeatedly in a 1934 meeting—Whitman quotes the transcript—devoted to planning the Nuremberg Laws, the basic Nazi legislation about race. The following year a delegation of forty-five Nazi lawyers, headed by Dr. Ludwig Fischer, who later would become governor of the Warsaw district in German-occupied Poland, went on a “study trip” to the United States. (The lawyers ignited an angry demonstration when they were seen giving one another the “Heil Hitler” salute in their midtown Manhattan hotel.)
The visitors studied several features of the American legal landscape. An important one was the laws against interracial marriage in no less than thirty states, laws that sometimes also provided severe criminal penalties for any such couple. The Maryland statute, for instance, set a prison term of eighteen months to ten years. These laws were described both in Nazi legal treatises and in propaganda for the German public. They were relevant, of course, to criminalizing marriages between “Aryans” and Jews.
A German commentator also noted that America’s Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the first Congress, opened the possibility of citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person.” German scholars were further interested in how the US dealt with the distinctly non-Aryan inhabitants of the Philippines and Puerto Rico after seizing these territories from Spain in the Spanish-American War, taking note of Supreme Court rulings that such people could be American nationals but not American citizens. A series of bills severely constricting Asian immigration also drew Nazi attention, one legal scholar writing in 1933 that they represented “a carefully thought-through system that first of all protects the United States from the eugenic point of view against inferior elements.” The same writer also approved of the 1924 American immigration law, whose quota system overwhelmingly favored immigrants from places like the British Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia. In 1934 a Nazi author was pleased to find another American law that offered a model for Nazi legislation against intermarriage, the Cable Act of 1922. Until amended eight years later, it provided that an American woman who married a noncitizen Asian man thereby lost her American citizenship.
“The bottom line is this,” Whitman writes: “When the leading Nazi jurists assembled in early June 1934 to debate how to institutionalize racism in the new Third Reich, they began by asking how the Americans did it.”
When we talk about how this devil has stuck his pitchfork so deep into our national soul, the key question is not, Is Donald Trump a racist? We waste millions of words on this daily. Yes! say the attackers. Look! He called Omarosa Manigault Newman a “dog”—what’s more racist than that? No! say the defenders: He loves Kanye West! Tiger Woods! Ben Carson!
The ayes have it on that question, but the far more important one is something else: Whose interests does the devil serve? And here, a long time ago, Du Bois and Baldwin both nailed it. As Trump and his fellow billionaires see their taxes go down and regulations evaporate, it’s painfully clear that all the charges about traitorous black athletes or terrorists who have to be walled off at the border are a smokescreen masking an enormous ongoing transfer of wealth. The same is true where other Trumps reign around the world. The tycoon friends of Modi and Orbán are doing very well indeed these days, thank you.
That transfer of American wealth from the poor to the rich has been going on for several decades. The basic facts are all too familiar: executive salaries and corporate profits soaring, union membership and power plummeting, real wages stagnant or declining for decades for the poorer 40 percent of our people. And those losing ground feel increasingly precarious and angry. But Fountain tells the tale well, reminding us sadly that, despite Barack Obama’s personal decency, there was no interruption of this pattern under him. During his first term (in the first half of which the Democrats also controlled both houses of Congress), none of the major figures who caused the 2008 financial crisis was punished, no big banks were broken up, and 95 percent of income gains went to the country’s wealthiest one percent.
Also painfully clear is the way Hillary Clinton’s tone-deaf campaign and her coziness with Goldman Sachs and Clinton Foundation donors held forth no alternative vision to ever-greater inequality. “Hillary couldn’t see the forest for the trees,” Fountain writes, “due to the elemental fact that she was one of the trees.” She was the culmination of thirty-five years of policies that made the Democratic Party become “not so much the champion of the working and middle classes as the party that made things worse a little more slowly than Republicans.”
Fountain quotes Justice Louis Brandeis: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” In search of hope, he goes back to someone else who felt the same way, despite being a man of considerable wealth himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The most glowing pages in Beautiful Country Burn Again are about what FDR tried to do with the New Deal, which Fountain believes transformed life in this country more than anything since the Emancipation Proclamation: “The roads, waterways, bridges, sewers and water mains, courthouses, libraries, and power grids.”
Image result for Franklin D. Roosevelt.He gives a particularly searing portrait of life on the vast majority of American farms in the early 1930s, which had no electricity to light the house, power a refrigerator to keep food from spoiling in the summer heat, pump water from the well, and much more: “That we’re alive and well today, walking and talking and in some cases making a career out of bashing the government, it’s because Great-Grandpa didn’t die from cholera or typhoid back in the day.” He might have added something else: the New Deal years were completely free of racial dog whistles from the White House, relatively free of race riots, and the number of lynchings dropped precipitously. For once, Americans were largely focused on something other than race. But imagine if a Trump-like figure had been president during the crisis of the Depression.
The New Deal is a far from perfect model. It didn’t significantly rein in corporate power, southern Democrats amended important programs to exclude blacks, and it didn’t put most of the unemployed back to work—unfortunately, that required World War II. But it showed a government trying on all burners to help those suffering most, create jobs, enlarge the rights of labor, extend Social Security and other parts of a safety net, and build public works that could benefit everyone. Until we have something like that again, the tens of millions of Americans who continue to fall behind economically will be looking for someone to blame—and demagogues will be only too happy to conjure up the traditional devil of race and tribe. No new Roosevelt is yet on the horizon, and we’re now stuck with the first American president in history endorsed by leaders of the Ku Klux Klan.
  1. 1
    See my “Ku Klux Klambakes,” The New York Review, December 7, 2017. 
  2. 2
    You can see it in an article Fountain drew on, “Bill Clinton’s Stone Mountain Moment,” by Nathan J. Robinson, Jacobin, September 16, 2016. 



NY REVIEW OF BOOKS


The Suffocation of Democracy: The Age of Illiberalism.




NY REVIEW OF BOOKS, Christopher R. Browning

Culture Club/Getty Images
German President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Adolf Hitler on their way to a youth rally at the Lustgarten, Berlin, May 1933
As a historian specializing in the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and Europe in the era of the world wars, I have been repeatedly asked about the degree to which the current situation in the United States resembles the interwar period and the rise of fascism in Europe. I would note several troubling similarities and one important but equally troubling difference.
In the 1920s, the US pursued isolationism in foreign policy and rejected participation in international organizations like the League of Nations. America First was America alone, except for financial agreements like the Dawes and Young Plans aimed at ensuring that our “free-loading” former allies could pay back their war loans. At the same time, high tariffs crippled international trade, making the repayment of those loans especially difficult. The country witnessed an increase in income disparity and a concentration of wealth at the top, and both Congress and the courts eschewed regulations to protect against the self-inflicted calamities of free enterprise run amok. The government also adopted a highly restrictionist immigration policy aimed at preserving the hegemony of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants against an influx of Catholic and Jewish immigrants. (Various measures barring Asian immigration had already been implemented between 1882 and 1917.) These policies left the country unable to respond constructively to either the Great Depression or the rise of fascism, the growing threat to peace, and the refugee crisis of the 1930s.

Image result for trump caricatures
Today, President Trump seems intent on withdrawing the US from the entire post–World War II structure of interlocking diplomatic, military, and economic agreements and organizations that have preserved peace, stability, and prosperity since 1945. His preference for bilateral relations, conceived as zero-sum rivalries in which he is the dominant player and “wins,” overlaps with the ideological preference of Steve Bannon and the so-called alt-right for the unfettered self-assertion of autonomous, xenophobic nation-states—in short, the pre-1914 international system. That “international anarchy” produced World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, the fascist dictatorships, World War II, and the Holocaust, precisely the sort of disasters that the post–World War II international system has for seven decades remarkably avoided.
In threatening trade wars with allies and adversaries alike, Trump justifies increased tariffs on our allies on the specious pretext that countries like Canada are a threat to our national security. He combines his constant disparagement of our democratic allies with open admiration of authoritarians. His naive and narcissistic confidence in his own powers of personal diplomacy and his faith in a handshake with the likes of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un recall the hapless Neville Chamberlain (a man in every other regard different from Trump). Fortunately the US is so embedded in the international order it created after 1945, and the Republican Party and its business supporters are sufficiently alarmed over the threat to free trade, that Trump has not yet completed his agenda of withdrawal, though he has made astounding progress in a very short time.
A second aspect of the interwar period with all too many similarities to our current situation is the waning of the Weimar Republic. Paul von Hindenburg, elected president of Germany in 1925, was endowed by the Weimar Constitution with various emergency powers to defend German democracy should it be in dire peril. Instead of defending it, Hindenburg became its gravedigger, using these powers first to destroy democratic norms and then to ally with the Nazis to replace parliamentary government with authoritarian rule. Hindenburg began using his emergency powers in 1930, appointing a sequence of chancellors who ruled by decree rather than through parliamentary majorities, which had become increasingly impossible to obtain as a result of the Great Depression and the hyperpolarization of German politics.
Because an ever-shrinking base of support for traditional conservatism made it impossible to carry out their authoritarian revision of the constitution, Hindenburg and the old right ultimately made their deal with Hitler and installed him as chancellor. Thinking that they could ultimately control Hitler while enjoying the benefits of his popular support, the conservatives were initially gratified by the fulfillment of their agenda: intensified rearmament, the outlawing of the Communist Party, the suspension first of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly and then of parliamentary government itself, a purge of the civil service, and the abolition of independent labor unions. Needless to say, the Nazis then proceeded far beyond the goals they shared with their conservative allies, who were powerless to hinder them in any significant way.

Image result for Mitch McConnell caricaturesIf the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings.
One can predict that henceforth no significant judicial appointments will be made when the presidency and the Senate are not controlled by the same party. McConnell and our dysfunctional and disrespected Congress have now ensured an increasingly dysfunctional and disrespected judiciary, and the constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government is in peril.
Whatever secret reservations McConnell and other traditional Republican leaders have about Trump’s character, governing style, and possible criminality, they openly rejoice in the payoff they have received from their alliance with him and his base: huge tax cuts for the wealthy, financial and environmental deregulation, the nominations of two conservative Supreme Court justices (so far) and a host of other conservative judicial appointments, and a significant reduction in government-sponsored health care (though not yet the total abolition of Obamacare they hope for). Like Hitler’s conservative allies, McConnell and the Republicans have prided themselves on the early returns on their investment in Trump. The combination of Trump’s abasement before Putin in Helsinki, the shameful separation of families at the border in complete disregard of US asylum law (to say nothing of basic humanitarian principles and the GOP’s relentless claim to be the defender of “family values”), and most recently Michael Cohen’s implication of Trump in criminal violations of campaign finance laws has not shaken the fealty of the Republican old guard, so there is little indication that even an explosive and incriminating report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller will rupture the alliance.
Image result for Special Counsel Robert MuellerBut the potential impact of the Mueller report does suggest yet another eerie similarity to the interwar period—how the toxic divisions in domestic politics led to the complete inversion of previous political orientations. Both Mussolini and Hitler came to power in no small part because the fascist-conservative alliances on the right faced division and disarray on the left. The Catholic parties (Popolari in Italy, Zentrum in Germany), liberal moderates, Social Democrats, and Communists did not cooperate effectively in defense of democracy. In Germany this reached the absurd extreme of the Communists underestimating the Nazis as a transitory challenge while focusing on the Social Democrats—dubbed “red fascists”—as the true long-term threat to Communist triumph.

Image result for Léon Blum,
Popular front President Leon Blum
By 1936 the democratic forces of France and Spain had learned the painful lesson of not uniting against the fascist threat, and even Stalin reversed his ill-fated policy and instructed the Communists to join democrats in Popular Front electoral alliances. In France the prospect of a Popular Front victory and a new government headed by—horror of horrors—a Socialist and Jew, Léon Blum, (above) led many on the right to proclaim, “Better Hitler than Blum.” Better the victory of Frenchmen emulating the Nazi dictator and traditional national enemy across the Rhine than preserving French democracy at home and French independence abroad under a Jewish Socialist. The victory of the Popular Front in 1936 temporarily saved French democracy but led to the defeat of a demoralized and divided France in 1940, followed by the Vichy regime’s collaboration with Nazi Germany while enthusiastically pursuing its own authoritarian counterrevolution.
Faced with the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the US election and collusion with members of his campaign, Trump and his supporters’ first line of defense has been twofold—there was “no collusion” and the claim of Russian meddling is a “hoax.” The second line of defense is again twofold: “collusion is not a crime” and the now-proven Russian meddling had no effect. I suspect that if the Mueller report finds that the Trump campaign’s “collusion” with Russians does indeed meet the legal definition of “criminal conspiracy” and that the enormous extent of Russian meddling makes the claim that it had no effect totally implausible, many Republicans will retreat, either implicitly or explicitly, to the third line of defense: “Better Putin than Hillary.” There seems to be nothing for which the demonization of Hillary Clinton does not serve as sufficient justification, and the notion that a Trump presidency indebted to Putin is far preferable to the nightmare of a Clinton victory will signal the final Republican reorientation to illiberalism at home and subservience to an authoritarian abroad.
Such similarities, both actual and foreseeable, must not obscure a significant difference between the interwar democratic decline and our current situation. In his 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis portrayed a Nazi-style takeover in the US, in which paramilitary forces of the newly elected populist president seize power by arresting many members of Congress and setting up a dictatorship replete with all-powerful local commissars, concentration camps, summary courts, and strict censorship, as well as the incarceration of all political opponents who do not succeed in fleeing over the Canadian border. Invoking the Nazi example was understandable then, and several aspects of democratic decline in the interwar period seem eerily similar to current trends, as I have noted. But the Nazi dictatorship, war, and genocide following the collapse of Weimar democracy are not proving very useful for understanding the direction in which we are moving today. I would argue that current trends reflect a significant divergence from the dictatorships of the 1930s.
The fascist movements of that time prided themselves on being overtly antidemocratic, and those that came to power in Italy and Germany boasted that their regimes were totalitarian. The most original revelation of the current wave of authoritarians is that the construction of overtly antidemocratic dictatorships aspiring to totalitarianism is unnecessary for holding power. Perhaps the most apt designation of this new authoritarianism is the insidious term “illiberal democracy.” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary have all discovered that opposition parties can be left in existence and elections can be held in order to provide a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy, while in reality elections pose scant challenge to their power. Truly dangerous opposition leaders are neutralized or eliminated one way or another.
Image result for Tayyip ErdoÄŸan
 Tayyip Erdoğan 
Total control of the press and other media is likewise unnecessary, since a flood of managed and fake news so pollutes the flow of information that facts and truth become irrelevant as shapers of public opinion. Once-independent judiciaries are gradually dismantled through selective purging and the appointment of politically reliable loyalists. Crony capitalism opens the way to a symbiosis of corruption and self-enrichment between political and business leaders. Xenophobic nationalism (and in many cases explicitly anti-immigrant white nationalism) as well as the prioritization of “law and order” over individual rights are also crucial to these regimes in mobilizing the popular support of their bases and stigmatizing their enemies.
Trump has shown unabashed admiration for these authoritarian leaders and great affinity for the major tenets of illiberal democracy. But others have paved the way in important respects. Republicans begin with a systemic advantage in electing senators and representatives, because the Democratic Party’s constituency has become heavily concentrated in big states and big cities. By my calculation every currently serving Democratic senator represents roughly 3.65 million people; every Republican roughly 2.51 million. Put another way, the fifty senators from the twenty-five least populous states—twenty-nine of them Republicans—represent just over 16 percent of the American population, and thirty-four Republican senators—enough to block conviction on impeachment charges—represent states with a total of 21 percent of the American population. With gerrymandering and voter suppression enhancing even more the systemic Republican advantage, it is estimated that the Democrats will have to win by 7 to 11 points (a margin only obtainable in rare “wave” elections) in the 2018 elections to achieve even the narrowest of majorities in the House of Representatives.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Trump supporters at a rally in Charleston, West Virginia, August 2018
In the five presidential elections of the twenty-first century, Democrats have won the popular vote four times. Two of these four (2000 and 2016) nonetheless produced Republican presidents, since the Electoral College reflects the same weighting toward small, more often Republican states as the Senate. Given the Supreme Court’s undermining of central provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder), its refusal to take up current flagrant gerrymandering cases (Gill v. Whitford for Wisconsin; Benisek v. Lamone for Maryland), and its recent approval of the Ohio law purging its voting rolls (Husted v. Randolph Institute), it must be feared that the Court will in the future open the floodgates for even more egregious gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The unprecedented flow of dark money into closely contested campaigns has distorted the electoral process even further. The Supreme Court decision declaring corporations to be people and money to be free speech (Citizens United v. FEC) in particular has greatly enhanced the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to influence American politics. We are approaching the point when Democrats might still win state elections in the major blue states but become increasingly irrelevant in elections for the presidency and Congress. Trump’s personal flaws and his tactic of appealing to a narrow base while energizing Democrats and alienating independents may lead to precisely that rare wave election needed to provide a congressional check on the administration as well as the capture of enough state governorships and legislatures to begin reversing current trends in gerrymandering and voter suppression. The elections of 2018 and 2020 will be vital in testing how far the electoral system has deteriorated.
Another area in which Trump has been the beneficiary of long-term trends predating his presidency is the decline of organized labor. To consolidate his dictatorship, Hitler had to abolish the independent unions in Germany in a single blow. Trump faces no such problem. In the first three postwar decades, workers and management effectively shared the increased wealth produced by the growth in productivity. Since the 1970s that social contract has collapsed, union membership and influence have declined, wage growth has stagnated, and inequality in wealth has grown sharply. Governor Scott Walker’s triumph over public sector unions in Wisconsin and the recent Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory public sector union dues (Janus v. AFSCME) simply accelerate a process long underway. The increasingly uneven playing field caused by the rise in corporate influence and decline in union power, along with the legions of well-funded lobbyists, is another sign of the illiberal trend.
Image result for Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker 
Alongside the erosion of an independent judiciary as a check on executive power, other hallmarks of illiberal democracy are the neutralization of a free press and the steady diminution of basic human rights. On these issues, often described as the guardrails of democracy against authoritarian encroachment, the Trump administration either has won or seems poised to win significant gains for illiberalism. Upon his appointment as chancellor, Hitler immediately created a new Ministry of People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels, who remained one of his closest political advisers.
In Trump’s presidency, those functions have effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News and Sean Hannity. Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a “Trump bubble” for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBSCNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times. The highly critical free media not only provide no effective check on Trump’s ability to be a serial liar without political penalty; on the contrary, they provide yet another enemy around which to mobilize the grievances and resentments of his base. A free press does not have to be repressed when it can be rendered irrelevant and even exploited for political gain.
The very first legislation decreed by Hitler under the Enabling Act of 1933 (which suspended the legislative powers of the Reichstag) authorized the government to dismiss civil servants for suspected political unreliability and “non-Aryan” ancestry. Inequality before the law and legal discrimination were core features of the Nazi regime from the beginning. It likewise intruded into people’s private choices about sexuality and reproduction. Persecution of male homosexuality was drastically intensified, resulting in the deaths of some 10,000 gay men and the incarceration and even castration of many thousands more. Some 300,000–400,000 Germans deemed carriers of hereditary defects were forcibly sterilized; some 150,000 mentally and physically handicapped Germans considered “unworthy of life” were murdered. Germans capable of bearing racially valued children were denied access to contraception and abortion and rewarded for having large families; pregnant female foreign workers were often forced to have abortions to prevent the birth of undesired children and loss of workdays.
Nothing remotely so horrific is on the illiberal agenda, but the curtailment of many rights and protections Americans now enjoy is likely. Presumably marriage equality will survive, given the sea change in American public opinion on that issue. But the right of businesses and individuals to discriminate against gays is likely to be broadly protected as a “sincerely held religious belief.” Chief Justice John Roberts’s favorite target, affirmative action, is likely to disappear under his slogan that to end racial discrimination, one must end all forms of racial discrimination. And a woman’s right to abortion will probably disappear in red states, either through an outright overturning of Roe v. Wade or more likely through narrower rulings that fail to find any “undue burden” in draconian restrictions that in practice make abortion unavailable. And equal protection of voting rights is likely to be eroded in red states through ever more insidiously designed voter suppression laws and gerrymandering once the Supreme Court makes clear that it will not intervene to curb such measures.
The domestic agenda of Trump’s illiberal democracy falls considerably short of totalitarian dictatorship as exemplified by Mussolini and Hitler. But that is small comfort for those who hope and believe that the arc of history inevitably bends toward greater emancipation, equality, and freedom. Likewise, it is small comfort that in foreign policy Trump does not emulate the Hitlerian goals of wars of conquest and genocide, because the prospects for peace and stability are nevertheless seriously threatened. Escalating trade wars could easily tip the world economy into decline, and the Trump administration has set thresholds for peaceful settlements with Iran and North Korea that seem well beyond reach.
It is possible that Trump is engaged in excessive rhetorical posturing as a bargaining chip and will retreat to more moderate positions in both cases. But it is also possible that adversarial momentum will build, room for concessions will disappear, and he will plunge the country into serious economic or military conflicts as a captive of his own rhetoric. Historically, such confrontations and escalations have often escaped the control of leaders far more talented than Trump.
No matter how and when the Trump presidency ends, the specter of illiberalism will continue to haunt American politics. A highly politicized judiciary will remain, in which close Supreme Court decisions will be viewed by many as of dubious legitimacy, and future judicial appointments will be fiercely contested. The racial division, cultural conflict, and political polarization Trump has encouraged and intensified will be difficult to heal. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uncontrolled campaign spending will continue to result in elections skewed in an unrepresentative and undemocratic direction. Growing income disparity will be extremely difficult to halt, much less reverse.
Finally, within several decades after Trump’s presidency has ended, the looming effects of ecological disaster due to human-caused climate change—which Trump not only denies but is doing so much to accelerate—will be inescapable. Desertification of continental interiors, flooding of populous coastal areas, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with concomitant shortages of fresh water and food, will set in motion both population flight and conflicts over scarce resources that dwarf the current fate of Central Africa and Syria. No wall will be high enough to shelter the US from these events. Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism, but regardless of how the Trump presidency concludes, this is a story unlikely to have a happy ending.


October 27, 2018


 Talk News:


  A quarrel between two stories. When Trump departs, what will the mainstream media do with his supporters? Those people aren’t going away.

NY REVIEW OF BOOKS

October 26, 2018

Fingerprint, DNA tie suspect to mail bombs
Cesar Sayoc, 56, charged with federal crimes as one more package, 14 in all, is found.


Cesar Sayoc Jr.


Possible reasons the pipe bombs didn’t explode.

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, said that the bureau was still trying to determine if Mr. Sayoc’s bombs were “functional” but noted that they contained “energetic material” that could be dangerous. Mr. Wray said that the investigation was “active” and cautioned that there could be more bombs still undiscovered.

October 25, 2018


Trump and Republicans settle on immigration fears — and falsehoods — as a midterm strategy





WASHINGTON POST

October 24, 2018


NYC: His Body Was Behind the Wheel for a Week Before It Was Discovered. This Was His Life.

A software designer ended his life in his parked car in the East Village. His family asked the police for help finding him, but met resistance.




NY TIMES

How the migrant caravan became so big and why it’s continuing to grow




WASHINGTON POST

.




Bombs are sent to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
Multiple explosive devices, pipe bombs, have been found in the mail addressed to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and CNN's New York newsroom - as investigators probe whether the 'similar' packages are the work of a serial bomber/terrorist. Secret Service agents revealed on Wednesday they had intercepted two packages en route to former President Obama's Washington D.C. home and Hillary and Bill Clinton's property in Chappaqua, New York. Initial reports that a pipe bomb was addressed to the White House was found to be erroneous. A short time later another suspicious package was discovered at the Time Warner Center in New York where CNN's newsroom is located. The package containing a 'functional explosive device' that was addressed to Clinton was found late Tuesday, while another package addressed to Obama was found early Wednesday. A law enforcement official told the Washington Post that investigators believe the devices are the work of the same person who sent a similar package to liberal billionaire George Soros' home on Monday. 

NY TIMES

Explosives Add to Climate of Overheated Partisan Rancor.

October 23, 2018


Why Mexico isn’t stopping the migrant caravan.
Honduran migrants wait on a bridge over the Suchiate River, connecting Guatemala and Mexico, in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, on Monday. (Oliver De Ros/AP)


WASHINGTON POST

 As thousands of Central American migrants continue their long walk to the U.S. border, prompting daily condemnations from President Trump, the Mexican government has had to decide: Are Trump’s threats enough to trigger an intervention?
For now, Mexican police have merely stepped aside as the caravan has passed, watching first as migrants took rafts across the river that separates the country from Guatemala, and then as they continued by foot along the main highway, chanting, “Si, se pudo!” or “Yes, we could!”
That response appears to have been conveyed to the White House, and now, once again, Mexico’s most important bilateral relationship appears to be on shaky ground.
“Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States,” Trump tweeted. He later said on Fox News, “I don’t know what’s going on with Mexico. It looks like the people are walking right through the middle of Mexico. So I’m not exactly thrilled there either!”
The caravan has marked another chapter in Mexico’s complicated effort to balance threats from the United States with the country’s own domestic politics. Detaining or deporting the caravan’s members would certainly please Trump, but it would flout Mexican immigration laws and further the impression that the government is taking orders from a hostile White House.
So far, the Mexican police appear to be conscious of that tension and the perception of their presence. Riot police have stopped to pose for pictures in their gear, as if ready to combat the migrants, letting international television crews film them before retreating.
The caravan risks a wider confrontation with Washington if Trump threatens to cut off aid to Mexico, as he has threatened to do in Central America, or attempts to seal the border with the U.S. military. Every day, billions of dollars in trade crosses the U.S.-Mexico border, and any attempt to block those flows could inflict serious economic harm on Mexico. The newly renegotiated North American trade agreement hangs in the balance as it has yet to be ratified by lawmakers.
The Mexican government’s dilemma is worsened by the fact that the incoming government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador campaigned on a gentler approach to migration, saying it would not hunt down migrants as if they were criminals.
The Mexican government’s dilemma is worsened by the fact that the incoming government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador campaigned on a gentler approach to migration, saying it would not hunt down migrants as if they were criminals.
“You have Trump’s government pressing Mr. Peña Nieto’s government to deter or stop the flows, but on the other hand, you have the pressure of public opinion and the new government saying you should treat the newcomers with dignity,” said Daniel Millan, a former spokesman in President Enrique Peña Nieto’s government who is now a political consultant. “They are walking a tightrope.”
Honduran migrants cross the Suchiate River, the natural border between Guatemala and Mexico, on makeshift rafts Monday. (Orlando Sierra/AFP/Getty Images)
Mexico’s incoming foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Monday on Mexican radio that it would be a “big mistake” for the Mexican government to use its armed forces to try to stop the caravan.
After a meeting Monday with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland in Ottawa, he added that his administration would offer more work visas for Central Americans. “We are going to invest in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador,” he said.
After a meeting Monday with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland in Ottawa, he added that his administration would offer more work visas for Central Americans. “We are going to invest in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador,” he said.
Peña Nieto addressed the caravan on Friday when he said, “Mexico does not allow people to enter our territory illegally and much less so violently.”
Mexico is by no means lax on undocumented Central American migrants. Last year, according to the Interior Ministry, Mexico deported 82,000 migrants from the region. It’s possible that, at any moment, the government could decide to take a harsher stance with the migrant caravan.
Central American migrants walk along the highway in Tapachula, Mexico, near the border with Guatemala. (Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters)
On Sunday, Trump had tweeted: “People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away.”
Indeed, Mexican authorities have repeatedly encouraged the Central American migrants to apply for legal status here, but it was unclear what that status would yield: asylum in Mexico, a temporary visa that would allow enough time for migrants to traverse the country, or something else. Several hundred members of the caravan have agreed to be processed legally, and over the weekend they were taken to a shelter in southern Mexico, which is currently closed to journalists.
On Monday morning, organizers of the caravan expressed skepticism toward Mexican immigration authorities.
“Humanitarian assistance has been predicated on detention,” said Irineo Mujica, the director of Pueblo Sin Fronteras.

October 22, 2018

October 20, 2018



 Identity politics may divide us. But ultimately we can't unite without it.






CARLOS LOZADA, CT. POST

October 18, 2018


Federal prosecutors open clergy abuse probe in Pennsylvania - News 

The Catholic sex abuse reckoning continues in Pennsylvania

VOX

  • The US Justice Department has opened an investigation of child sexual abuse inside the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania, a pattern of behavior that allegedly dates back to the late 1940s. [AP / Maryclaire Dale and Eric Tucker]
  • So far, US authorities have subpoenaed at least three Catholic dioceses, including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as part of the probe. It comes a few months after a scathing grand jury report on Pennsylvania priests. [CNN / Daniel Burke and Rosa Flores]
  • The report includes an appendix of 301 “predator priests” in six dioceses across the state, who have allegedly sexually abused more than 1,000 children since 1947. Most of the victims are said to be boys, many of whom were prepubescent at the time of the abuse. [Washington Post]
  • The accused dioceses serve more than half of the state’s 3.2 million Catholic followers. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro previously said no state charges could be filed because of statutes of limitation. [CBS Philly]
  • Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro speaks during a news conference at the state Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., on Aug. 14, 2018. A Pennsylvania grand jury’s investigation of clergy sexual abuse identified more than 1,000 child victims. The people seated were some of those affected by the clergy abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
  • In the meantime, advocacy groups for abuse victims, like Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, have been ramping up calls for a federal investigation ever since the report was released in August. [Religion News / Jack Jenkins]
  • The issue of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests was brought to national light in 2002 following a series of publications by the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team, which led to the criminal prosecutions of five priests from the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. [Boston Globe]