Month: January 2018

Where Is Our Common Cause

Last night I watched two contrasting views of America. These views have often been presented as good and evil (by me as well), but I don’t think that characterization is necessary.   For the first time in a while, I listened to those views outside of the turmoil of the Mueller Investigation. It is more than just President Trump, it is more than just Congressman Kennedy. It is two differing views of our country.

Get past the “Make America White Again” rhetoric of the left. There is a real view of those that back the President, a view that sees America and Americans First as an imperative for action. This ideology makes the first priority of the government to improve American lives, and is, as Congressman Kennedy presents it, a “zero sum” game. If we improve lives for Americans, we can’t improve lives for others, we don’t have the resources.

There has always been this debate about economics: whether giving wealth to businesses and the rich makes America better. Those that favor this look at the times of tremendous growth, particularly the “Gilded Age” after the American Civil War. America built infrastructure: from railroads to cities to factories to canals. America invented “everything” from farm equipment to telephones, to manufacturing processes. America became a world power, first in trade requiring markets, then to overseas possessions to transport goods, and finally to military strength to protect those markets and possessions. And we did this with unfettered capitalism, and nearly unlimited labor.

When President Trump calls for less regulation (the “Trump surrogate” quote: we cut from 100,000 regulations to 62,000 in the first year) he sees this as freeing the economic giant waiting, just as it was freed 140 years ago. When he cuts taxes to corporations and the wealthy, that feeds the giant, stirring it to new feats of growth and power.

The problem:  the tax cuts means the government can do less for Americans when it comes to health care, education and other social services.  Fewer regulations also means fewer protections.  And all of this means a greater disparity of wealth among Americans.

And all of this is for Americans, not for the world. America First means we should shrug off the responsibility of the world, and focus on our own issues. As Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller said in that crazy press conference go-round with CNN’s Jim Acosta: the Statue of Liberty stands as a shining example to the world – not an invitation to participate.

Congressman Kennedy, in the Democratic rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union speech, pointed out that America First has meant abandoning the world. Whether it’s the environment, immigration, or trade: America First has meant leave the world out. He offers a more difficult view of the world – a world in which America is a leader, is involved, and is willing to compromise to be a part of a whole world solution.

America needs to share. It needs to share its wealth, its prestige, and its dedication to freedom and human rights. Kennedy’s view sees America as more than just a “Winner over Losers.” America needs to make the world Win. Not only is this the “right” or “moral” thing to do, but it is also the way to make the world safer for all.

It starts with America at home – taking care of its own. The uncontrolled capitalism of the Gilded Age was built on cheap immigrant labor.   Regulations were written to protect the workers from exploitation: coal miners from unvented mines that exploded, ten year olds from back breaking labor, factory workers from dangerous unprotected machinery. The “winners” of capitalism then meant the “losers” of labor. That is the “zero sum game.”

Kennedy spoke of a country, and a world, where we don’t have to choose winners and losers. As he put it: “I choose both.” It is harder because there are so many more to be concerned about. But a world where everyone has a stake, a chance to advance, and where there is less contrast between the “haves and the have nots;”means a world vested in succeeding, rather than destroying.  That is a world with fewer terrorists, less violence, and more competition to improve.

The words on the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your huddled masses, yearning to be free, the wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me. I lift my light beside the Golden Door.

Kennedy’s view is the Statue is not just a symbol of American example, it is an invitation to come in and participate. It also a commitment of America to spread it’s light to the world.

Two views: are we a “city on a hill,” a shining example, or are we an active participant, trying to lead the whole world to a better place. If you can get past Trump, Russia, Mueller and all the rest of the madness we live with day to day: this engagement of ideas is what our current political struggle truly is about.

Life In America

I live a politically super-charged existence. I wake up to the Washington Post and proceed to MSNBC over coffee. The politics of America are a constant topic of conversation, thought, analysis, and emotion. Even Buddy, our dog, is “in:” when we leave him alone we leave him with his MSNBC “friends” whose voices are so familiar.

There are times when it seems far too much; but it’s my way of life in Trump World. I remember that same hyper-awareness during several crises in our government, beginning with the election of 1968. My candidate, Robert Kennedy, was shot down in June, only a few weeks after Martin Luther King. During the famous Chicago Democratic Convention with its riots, tear-gassing and police beatings in the street; I was laid up on the couch with a newly fractured arm. I watched the twenty-four hour network coverage, and the political machine roll over the “people’s will” with the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. I was twelve, and it was the first time I was really involved in the political process.

I’ve been hooked ever since. I have usually balanced my life, not allowing events to consume all of my attention. But from time to time; Watergate, the Persian Gulf War, the Clinton Impeachment, the election of 2000 and September 11, 2001; I have allowed myself to risk drowning in the ongoing events of the day.

This week I feel like there are more floundering people in this “sea of Trump.” The issues and terms have crept into multiple areas of our lives. On television, a show like Madame Secretary was about a President who had a mental incapacity (a brain tumor impacting his frontal lobe executive decision making) and had to be removed by the 25^th Amendment. In Bull the lawyers were faced with following the instructions of a client and committing insurance fraud (Don McGahn may have faced a similar problem.) And even NCIS Los Angeles was about a rumored North Korean missile strike. And of course, late night TV starts with a monologue including the President, no matter what show you choose to watch.

I attended a beautiful wedding this weekend (and a great party after) and both in the ceremony and in the dinner toasts reference was made to the divisiveness of our times. No one made mention of President Trump, no one “took a side,” but the general climate found its way into the ceremony with several statements about overcoming disputations with love.

We all carefully choose where we share political discussions, even though we all want to talk about it. What if we find our friends don’t agree, or even worse, favor the other side: the intensity of feeling might end the friendship. And with those friends who we KNOW are “the other side,” there’s that difficult task of finding other things to talk about. It’s hard to do when the “alerts” on your phone are constantly reminding you of the next crisis.

The tide of the Trump crisis is rising. More and more of our lives and times will be subsumed by the events and actions. It will become even more difficult to maintain relationships across partisan divides. And as hard it was to believe with the Watergate or the 2000 Election, or 9/11; in the end I believe in the ultimate patriotism of America: the crisis will be resolved. We can only hope that we can then get back to a more normal Life in America.

 

 

 

Amok Time

Star Trek debuted in 1966, when I was ten years old (I heard that – that “Oh My God – he’s a Trekkie – click off!!”) While there is a lot of Sixties history that relates to Trek, that’s not what I’m getting to in this essay (whew!!)

Perhaps the most famous character from Star Trek was Commander Spock, the first officer. Spock was from a planet where the Vulcans had given up emotion in order to save their civilization from self-destruction. Spock, half human and half Vulcan, constantly struggled to maintain his Vulcan composure, submerging his human side.

Except during “Pon farr,” the time when Vulcans were biologically drawn  to their planet to mate. Then Spock took over the ship, took it to Vulcan, and damn-near killed Captain Kirk in a battle over a prospective mate. It was “Amok Time” – the time of Insanity.

Ok, that is enough Star Trek. But the United States is approaching our own version of “pon farr,” our Amok Time over the Presidency of Donald Trump. Here are the headlines of Fox News (or sort-of news) on Friday, January 24^th:

• Trump denies trying to fire Mueller
•  Obama-Farrakhan photo kept hidden for more than a decade
• Texts – FBI officials worried about being too tough on Hillary during email probe
• George Soros calls Trump Administration a “danger to the world”
• Democrats see crumbs and scraps with new tax cuts, Americans see bigger pay checks and more jobs.

Meanwhile on CNN:

• NYT – Trump tried to fire Mueller over three issues
• Crowd boos as Trump calls media “fake”
• Trump is not getting along with his chief of staff, again
• Dems slam WH immigration proposal.

The news broke last night that President Trump was planning on firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller last June, only stopped by his White House Counsel threatening to quit. Meanwhile Trump’s lawyers are negotiating with Mueller on if/when/where Mueller will question Trump about “Russiagate.” And the Trump loyalists in the House of Representatives are touting a four-page report on the purported ‘coup’ plot by senior members of the FBI.

It’s getting near “Amok Time.” And while it’s crazy, to some the fate of our Democracy is at stake. A somber Congressman Jerry Nadler (D – New York) said last night:

“…Democracy can slip away into another form of government. I hope the Republicans and the people won’t allow that.”

That is the great danger that we all face. Whatever Mueller finds, it is clear that the nation will be divided over the results, and the consequences. Trump supporters have done their best to delegitimize the investigation and the institutions behind it. Congressional Republican leaders have done nothing to alter that perception, and in their silence, have lent support. Americans will be faced with stark alternatives.

If Mueller comes back with tangible evidence that President Trump actively participated in crimes, including obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit felonies in the election (the legal term for collusion), what will America do? Many Americans, myself included, will expect the Congress to move forward with holding the President accountable for his actions; impeachment.

But the Republicans in Congress have shown no inclination to consider such an option. It seems that they are willing to accept and excuse any actions of the Trump campaign or administration. Just as the Evangelical Christians were willing to give Trump a “mulligan” on his morality, the Congressional GOP seems willing to accept whatever he did for whatever they can get.

And the opposite Democrats will demand impeachment, not just for what Trump may have done, but for what he stands for. They want his removal for Russiagate, and destroying the Consumer Protection Bureau. They want his head for laundering money and Russian mobsters, and for “Making America White Again.” I find myself in that camp, but remember that after Trump comes Pence, and after Pence, Ryan, and after Ryan, Hatch; like some Biblical curse.

We are headed into “Amok Time.” It will determine the outcome of the Trump Presidency, it will determine the future course of our nation: but more than any of that, it will determine the fate of the Republic. We, all sides, should keep that in mind, as we lose ours.

 

 

 

 

In Defense of the President

Congressman Devin Nunes claims to know there was an FBI conspiracy to stop the Trump Presidency. His evidence: a four page report he “researched” from classified information sent over to the Intelligence Committee by the FBI (in an agreement with the Deputy Attorney General, the FBI Director and the Speaker of the House.) Nunes and four Republican committee members developed the information, and are sharing it with other Republican Congressmen. Democrats, including members of the Intelligence Committee, have not been given access.

This is the same Nunes who was given inaccurate information about FISA warrant “unmasking” by the White House in the middle of the night, then ran back to the White House the next morning to declare to them that he had “found” this new evidence. For that escapade, Nunes recused himself from the Intelligence Committee investigation of the Russia matter for several months, but now he’s cleared and he’s back to work again.

The report fits perfectly into the Trump narrative: a “deepstate” conspiracy of the intelligence agencies to prevent the Trump election, regardless of the fact that the FBI investigation into the Clinton emails cost her the election.  High level intelligence officials were supposedly conspiring to stop Trump and elect Clinton, centering on Peter Strozk, who with “Forest Gump like prescience” seemed to be at every significant FBI interview involving the election (including Hillary Clinton and Michael Flynn.)

Strozk and his correspondent, Lisa Page, made the same mistake of arrogance that many of the Trump senior campaign team committed. They assumed that because of their position, no one would surveil their communication. Strozk and Page were texting on government provided phones. Flynn, Kushner, and others in the transition were talking to foreign nationals and should have known were under surveillance. All of this has provided information to both sides of the Trump investigation.

It also lends ammunition to Trump’s attack on the FBI itself. Starting with the firing of Director Jim Comey last spring, he continues with assaults against Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (a career FBI agent) and FBI chief counsel Jim Baker. Current Director Chris Wray has pushed back, threatening to resign if he is pressured to change staff, but Baker is gone, and McCabe is “retiring” at forty-nine years of age.

Why this attack? Both McCabe and Baker are witnesses to Comey’s statements after meetings with Trump. It is important to make them “disgruntled former employees” to demean their testimony. In addition Comey, Wray, McCabe, fired Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and fired US Attorney Dana Boente (now the new FBI counsel) all have one thing in common. They are all long serving “establishment” Justice Department officials: Just like Robert Mueller.

Just like Robert Mueller: if the Trump supporters can creates questions about the FBI (and the other intelligence agencies) then they can question the outcomes of the Mueller investigation. This creates “doubt” for the President. Unlike other members of the administration and the President’s family, Trump himself is immune from legal prosecution while President. The only recourse is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. The strategy: raise enough doubts about the investigations; the “deepstate” conspiracy and the intelligence surveillance of the Trump transition team; and Trump goes from “obstructing justice” to defending his administration. Impeachment, a political rather than judicial process, is undermined by political doubt.

As Mueller moves to interrogate the President himself, Trump’s supporters are searching for ways to avoid the confrontation. The more overt ways, claiming executive privilege and “taking the fifth,” are both perilous political choices. The executive privilege claim would delay the questioning, but the US Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v United States that the claim should eventually be overruled in a criminal matter. And while the President does have an absolute right to the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, the spectacle of a President taking the fifth would be overwhelming.

Enter Roger Stone, old political ally of the President. Stone calls for the President to avoid the “perjury trap” that Mueller would set in questioning by refusing to meet. Stone called any Trump interrogation a “suicide mission” for the President.  This gives the Presidential supporters their out: Trump should refuse questioning, as the “deepstate” Mueller isn’t seeking the truth, but setting a “perjury trap” to do further damage. It’s a matter of tricking the President.

Of course, the alternative of Trump not committing perjury doesn’t seem a likely possibility to Stone and other Trump allies.

Robert Mueller continues his inexorable journey to the truth, whatever that may be. But the institutions of American Justice: the Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation; all are being undermined by President Trump. These institutions have traditionally been supported by the Republican Party (and questioned by the Democrats.) But the need of Trump for  seeds of doubt is more important to his supporters than the structural integrity of American government.

 

 

Where Go the Dreamers?

Tuesday morning the US Government reopens. The ugly standoff of the weekend is over: both sides claim some form of victory. But the absolute losers are the most innocent, the 800,000 “Dreamers.”

The “deal” that reopened the government was little different than the deal on the table before the shutdown. The budget was kicked down the road, until February 8^th, when the whole drama will begin again. Off the table is the Childhood Insurance (CHIP) program, now re-authorized for six years. And hidden in the deal were more tax cuts, this time delays to three taxes needed to fund some parts of the Affordable Care Act.

So what did Democrats get for the “Dreamers,” the ultimate reason for the shutdown in the first place? An agreement with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that he “intends” to bring DACA  legislation to the Senate floor for debate and vote. There is NO agreement on a DACA solution in the Senate, NO agreement on House of Representative participation at all, and NO word from the White House on their stand. The Democratic minority played a weak hand; they got a weak deal.

What happens next? There is still a real majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives that want DACA legislation that would grant some form of permanent legal status to the Dreamers, and ultimately US citizenship. The Dreamers do have some political capital, particularly in those Districts that have a significant number of Latino voters.  Members running for re-election ignore that significance at their peril.

It is likely that in the next budget snafu, due on Thursday, February 8^th, the Senate will put some form of DACA plan forward. And while there is a bipartisan proposal in the House by Congressmen Hurd (R, Texas) and Aguilar (D, California)[1], there is still the dark force of the Freedom Caucus against it, and the strangely silent position of Speaker Paul Ryan.

The outlines of the battle are vague.  The Senate may pass a  DACA  bill as part of the next budget resolution with additions for border security (Trump might call that a “wall”.) Democrats cannot let it get conflated with other immigration changes, that would doom the bill from the start.  Then it will fall to the House. Speaker Ryan will not have a “majority of the majority” in favor of such a bill, but he would have a majority of the House (all of the Democrats and many Republicans.)

In order for Ryan to violate the “Hastert Rule”  requiring him to have a majority of Republicans in favor, he would need to have political cover. That cover is the President of the United States, who could signal that HE wants that bill passed. Ryan would then be doing the President’s bidding, and could lead the House forward.

Which then brings us to the ultimate question: what is the White House stand? Is it the deal that Trump signaled at least three times (the bill of “love” meeting, the Schumer meetings, and most recently with Joe Manchin)? Or is it the hardline approach of Chief of Staff Kelly, or worse, the near-racist views of Advisor Stephen Miller?

Democrats are faced with a perilous choice. If the President doesn’t signal a stand, then Senate Democrats can’t count on the House. If they can’t count on the House, then they are forced to either close the government once again, or completely fail. And while politically they could fall back on waiting for the next election, it will be too late for Dreamers. The protections they now have expire on March 5^th.

The Administration has pursued a policy of relentless deportation of “criminal” immigrants. The conceit is they are deporting “criminals,” leaving the impression that dangerous felons are being removed. The fact: they have defined all illegals as criminals, so all of them are at risk.

Dreamers have registered with the Federal Government in order to gain protections. Now that registration process could be turned against them – the Government knows where they live. They, and Democrats, are dependent on the “mercy” of President Trump. Good luck with that.

 

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/politics/bipartisan-daca-compromise-plan-unveiled/index.html

Hostage Takers

At the stroke of midnight, the United States Government was “shut down” last night. And while “shut down” is a fuzzy term, with Post Offices, Parks, Police and many other Federal agencies still functioning; as the spouse of a retired federal employee, I can tell you that the impact of a “shut down” is real. Pay is cut, jobs aren’t done, and the mission of the Federal Government slowly grinds to a halt.

Conservatives claim this is a “Schumer Shutdown,” after the Democratic Minority Leader of the Senate. Progressives claim this is “Trump’s Shutdown,” after the President of the United States. But this shut down really is the “Freedom Caucus Shutdown,” after the thirty-six hard right conservatives in the House of Representatives, the same folks that brought us the shut down of 2013. And while the Republican majority is giving them the “cover” they didn’t have five years ago, they are doing it again.

Here’s how it works. There is a large consensus in both the House and the Senate to pass legislation to take care of the “Dreamers;” 800,000 folks who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents. The Dreamers grew up here as Americans: they talk, walk, and act like Americans. They have no other home. But since they weren’t born in the US, they are technically illegal aliens. And while the Dreamers have been an unusually successful group, they have only had a temporary legal status through an executive order under President Obama.

President Trump, through his Attorney General, removed that protection. There is a large majority of Congress, and the American people, who want Dreamers to have a legal status. Americans don’t want the spectacle of black helmeted ICE Agents hauling them into detention facilities, and sending them to alien countries.

But not the Freedom Caucus. They are willing to use the Dreamers as hostage to their greater plan of restricting immigration. Joined by Presidential Advisors Miller and Kelly, and a few Senators (Tom Cotton of Arkansas most notably) they are working to re-write American immigration policy. Last week’s disastrous meeting with President Trump, the “shithole” meeting, was part of their efforts. And while they don’t have a majority anywhere, they do have the “Hastert Rule.”

The Hastert Rule was named after former Republican Speaker of the House and acknowledged child molester Dennis Hastert. The Speaker controls all of the bills that can be voted on by the full House of Representatives. Hastert’s rule reads that before a bill can be sent for a full vote, a majority of Republicans must want the bill to pass. So, even if a bill could pass with a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans, under this rule the Republican Speaker can’t allow it to come to a vote.

There is a majority of the House of Representatives that would vote for a DACA bill, which would legitimize Dreamers. There is a majority of the Senate (probably more than 80) who would vote for that as well. But because the Freedom Caucus in the House is able to keep a “majority of the majority” of Republicans from voting for the bill, under Hastert, it can’t come up.

Unless Republican Speaker Paul Ryan decides to take a risk, and break the Hastert rule. It’s been done before: the last time the specter of a shutdown came up, then Speaker John Boehner broke the rule, and avoided the closure. Boehner soon resigned from the Congress: the price he paid for keeping the government open. It’s not likely that Ryan would make the same stand.

President Trump ran for office with an overriding claim to fame: he could “MAKE A DEAL.” While he has squirmed back and forth on DACA and immigration, he could broker a deal which could end the shut down. It is unlikely that the Freedom Caucus would try to break such an arrangement, and even if they did, Trump could provide Ryan with the cover he needs to break the Hastert Rule.

How long will a government shut down last? How long will it take for Ryan, Trump and McConnell to deal with their own party’s problems; and let a DACA bill, that would overwhelmingly pass, come up for a vote? The answer to those questions will determine who “owns” this shut down, and who are the hostage takers.

 

 

 

 

 

A Flare in the Darkness

In 1968, when I was in eighth grade, we often had the “old” guys come in to talk about what it was like to live back in “history.” World War II veterans, many our parents, would visit class and tell stories about the war or what it was like to live in the Great Depression. Hearing their stories, even though they must have been modified and sanitized, gave us a link to the past and an insight into living history.

In 2038 I’ll be eighty-two years old. As one of those “old guys” (if I’m not already there) what history will I tell those eighth graders about the “Trump Days” twenty years before? I’ll certainly speak of the constant twenty-four hour news, the “twitter” pronouncements and rumors, the on-going barrage of anxiety producing actions (from all sides) that led to a life of turmoil and concern.

And as an old former teacher, I  will want to document my story. Just as Churchill’s “Darkest Hour” or Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” documented World War II, so will speeches of our time demonstrate both our failures and successes to the future. One of those speeches will certainly be the one delivered by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake on the Senate floor yesterday.

Flake has little to lose. He has chosen not to run for re-election to the Senate, the writing on the wall is that he would lose badly in a primary to Republicans who were more “Trump-like.” He may have a future run for the Presidency, but it’s difficult to see where his constituency is in the Republican party outside of his home state and Utah. So Flake really isn’t speaking for his own political future, he is laying down a marker for history.

The headline of his speech, the one that the twenty-four hour news picked up, was his comparison of Trump and Josef Stalin, World War II dictator of Russia. To be fair, Flake didn’t really do that, he simply stated the Trump’s use of the phrase “enemy of the people” describing the news media was the same phrase that Stalin used. Flake went on to say that Stalin’s successor, Khrushchev, denounced the phrase because it was too easily turned into a death sentence.

But Flake’s speech wasn’t about Stalin. It was about truth, and the relationship of truth and democracy. Flake warned that Trump has weakened the public’s confidence in the press, calling it “fake news” or “alternative facts” when it doesn’t suit his needs, marking it as “the enemy of the people.” Flake states:

“…And of course, the President has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy.”

Flake also quoted Daniel Moynihan – “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” And that is what Flake is worried about, that the President is “creating” his own facts, denying others, and therefore obscuring the truth. In so doing, he is making it easier to deny or distract from the reality of events like Russian interference in the 2016 election, and efforts to prevent future intrusions.

In addition, Flake sees the President’s attitude as giving aid to suppression of the press, and the people, of nations around the world. He notes that Syria’s Assad, the Phillipines’s Duterte, and Venezuela’s Maduro have all used “fake news” to defend their despotic actions.

Flake briefly mentions George Orwell, who in his novel 1984 demonstrated how government manipulation of “facts” was a means to maintain despotism. For those of us who thought that Orwell’s vision could never happen here, Flake quotes the author: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” What seemed to be an anachronistic warning in class readings of the 1960’s, now rings with clarity today.

The United States has been through many periods of questioning “facts”: from the yellow journalism of the 1890’s to the government lies of Vietnam highlighted in the Pentagon Papers of the 1970’s, we have been misled. But the nation has always swung back to the truth. To this Flake issues a warning:

“We are a mature democracy – it is well past time that we stop excusing or ignoring – or worse, endorsing – these attacks on the truth. For if we compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.”

 I hope, as the old man invited into a classroom to talk about our history, I can cite Jeff Flake’s courageous speech as signaling America to change course: a flare in the darkness, leading us to the light.

 

 

Text of Senator Jeff Flake’s Speech 1/17/18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

The State of the President’s Mind

I was a high school coach for forty years. I spent a lot of time in locker rooms, preparing athletes for competition and supervising their actions. I knew what locker room talk was, and I demanded from my athletes that they control their mouths, and their minds. It wasn’t that profanity was “banned,” they were, after all, high school kids. There were two elements of control: that the profanity be private, not public, and that the profanity be general, not personal.

Using profanity to characterize a person, as opposed to their actions, was unacceptable, not only because it always elicited an extreme response from the victim, but also because it could never be “fixed.” Once that insult was used, once it was out there, you couldn’t walk it back.

And the final rule: if you couldn’t figure out the difference between public and private, or make a distinction between a person and their actions; then you shouldn’t use profanity at all.

The President of the United States does not use profanity without thought. He chooses what he says: profanity is a tool he uses for its effect on the audience. He gains attention by it; the shock value of his words gets him the personal and political notoriety he craves. For the purposes of his “audience,” especially his core supporters, he characterizes the words as “tough language,” implying that tough, strong men use this tough, strong language.

(See John Wayne Had It about Trumpian views of manhood.)

The President’s use of profanity is a window to his mind. In September, he spoke about NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem at a rally for failed Senatorial candidate Luther Strange. In the speech he made the following statement:

“Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired. He’s fired!”

The players taking a knee were overwhelmingly African American. Trump was more than willing to use profanity when describing these players. But perhaps the next statement gives an even greater insight into Trump’s mind. He stated that if an NFL owner followed the above advice:

“For a week, (that owner would) be the most popular person in this country. Because that’s a total disrespect of our heritage. That’s a total disrespect for everything we stand for…”

The “profanity” there is the term, “our heritage.” His “our” does not include marching for civil rights, nor civil disobedience, nor minorities. It is not a “dog whistle;” it’s a bullhorn shout-out to “white heritage,” the same shout he made when he stated that: “…there were some very fine people on both sides…” of the Charlottesville protests.

Which brings us to the meeting of last week, when the President described the nations that African and Haitian immigrants left to come to the United States as “shitholes.”

There really is no controversy about what was said. The faulty memory of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the outright changing lies of Senators Cotton and Perdue, remind me of a bunch of freshmen high school boys trying to cover up some infraction. That aren’t very good at it, they didn’t get their story straight, and they end up looking foolish and making Senators Durbin and Graham look clear and truthful.

It’s countries where black and brown people come from. Lilly white Norway, why those people are welcome to come to the US. But those other countries, well, we see what he thinks. And again, this is NOT a mistake, NOT just “tough talk” in a heated argument. This was a clear window into the President’s mind, and another bullhorn shout to his base. He even discussed with advisors and friends how it might appeal to them.

No doubt Congressman John Lewis is right and the President of the United States is a racist. He sees black and brown peoples as living in “shitholes” (not just Nigerian “mud huts,” but Chicago) and not welcome in HIS America. This is not new. What is new is the ongoing public commentary that somehow normalizes this view. It is the undercurrent that the President is simply saying out loud what everyone is thinking, that his views represent our national “secret.”

It isn’t what everyone is thinking. It isn’t OUR national view. It is the view of a small anachronistic group, wishing for a mythical past, grasping for one more claim to power.

As a coach in the locker room, I occasionally had to make a point to my team. If I really needed to demonstrate where the limits were, the best move was to crack down on the “star” athlete, the one everyone looked up to. Correcting him made it clear to all what was acceptable and what was not. Let him go, and you could never get control.

President Trump, the “star” of the political right, is making it clear that this racism is now acceptable, at least to him. As he has done with so many other issues, he is unbinding America’s wounds and causing us to re-fight the battles of the 1960’s. Starting from election day in 2016, and continuing through today and 2018, we will be required to re-litigate the battles of that era in order to “bind up the Nation’s wounds” again. I guess it’s appropriate that it happened over the Martin Luther King’s memorial day, Dr. King would have probably said – I told you.  He also would have repeated:

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

We will need to do some bending.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s Good for the Goose…

Senator Rand Paul must still be suffering from the effects of his backyard brawl. Maybe he should be in the “Senate concussion protocol” and held out until he passes the tests. This morning, on “Morning Joe,” Senator Paul took the following text “snippet” and made it into a conspiracy of senior FBI agents to overthrow the President.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …” 

This a message between Senior Agent Peter Strozk and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, presumably about a conversation in Deputy Director Andy McCabe’s office.  Paul describes this as evidence that there was a conspiracy to overthrow the government. The only evidence he has – of an FBI coup d’etat!

And yet, in the next sentence, Paul falls back on the refrain that there is no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding (not conspiracy – oh no, that’s a legal term with consequences) and in fact that the only collusion was by the Clinton Campaign!

Rand Paul has always been a “wild card” Senator. As a libertarian who aligns himself with the Republicans, he has usually avoided the “party line” when it comes to purely political actions. In that, even a “liberal” Democrat like me has found him fascinating from time to time.

Now he’s running the party propaganda. If that little text is evidence of high treason, than the Donald Junior emails, the Flynn connections, the Popadopulos actions: well, we need to start hanging people now.

Senator Paul, I’m disappointed. I hoped for more. But if there’s a conspiracy, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

 

An American Apprenticeship

I am a licensed teacher in the State of Ohio. To get my license, I had to have a Bachelors Degree, specialized “teacher” training, a six month “apprenticeship” (student teaching) and continuing education. To progress in teaching I earned a Masters Degree. To stay in education, I am required to pass ongoing criminal background checks. There’s even more training required for younger teachers now. All this is required to teach in a public school.  To be a physician, a Bachelors Degree, four years of medical school, two-years “apprenticeship” as an intern, then even more training depending on the specialty.

To be the President of the United States, you must be a “natural born” United States citizen (citizenship since birth), thirty-five years old, and a ten year resident of the United States. That is all. There is no other requirement, other than to win election.

For certain the President is a “generalist”, not a specialist. A President must deal with subjects as diverse as nuclear science, the economics of employment, military strategy, and the oratory necessary to explain whatever is going on in the country.  As broad as the subjects range for the Presidency, shouldn’t there be some basic requirements of knowledge? There isn’t time for much “on the job” training, the President needs to know what’s going on from the beginning.

So what should the preparation be for the President of the United States? First, the President should have knowledge of how the government works beyond a high school civics course level. An in depth understanding of the Constitution is essential, with a comprehension of the tension and balances of the three branches. A familiarity with history and the legislative process would certainly be a must. Historically, twenty-six Presidents have been lawyers, and many have served their “apprenticeship” in the legislature, with thirteen Senators, and another seven Congressmen.

Second, the President must have experience in “running things,” the essence of executive authority. While running a business certainly would count, running complex government organizations (Governor of a state for example) would be more specific to the task. Nineteen Presidents were previously Vice President or members of the cabinet, and fourteen were Governors of their state. Four Presidents had as their main experience being a commanding General:  Washington, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.

Third, the modern President must be able to communicate ideas to the American people. This is strength of Presidents Trump and was for Obama, as well as Clinton, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, Lincoln and Reagan. As part of this communication, the President must be able to relate to the American people, and show an understanding of their concerns.

Fourth, the modern President must be willing to have their lives scrutinized for every action (and allow it). As our current executive crisis demonstrates, whatever failures or successes the President may have, the world is going to know about them. The days when JFK could have affairs in the White House, or Harding have a paramour back home in Marion, are long over. For a President to be able to focus on what’s in front, they have to be able to put their past behind.

As Democrats make choices for 2020 they need to keep these criteria in mind. A candidate that has the qualifications of “fame and fortune” without the underlying experience, will leave the country in the same disruption of the current regime.

The American political pendulum swings from one extreme to another. This is seen historically as the older and more experienced Eisenhower was followed by the youthful Kennedy, and more recently, Barack Obama was followed by Donald Trump. The next pendulum swing may well be not so much one of politics, but of experience. Regardless of the political agenda of the candidate, it may be a more significant qualification for the candidate to be a known “steady-hand.” It is important for both parties to recognize this reality, and choose accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where’s my Roy Cohn?

In the early pivotal moment of the Trump Presidency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined that he had to recuse (remove) himself from any Department of Justice investigations into the Presidential campaign of 2016 and the Russian connections (March 2^nd 2017). This was after Sessions failed to answer questions truthfully about meetings with Russians during 2016 to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The President was very aware that whoever controlled the Department of Justice investigations would determine how deep into “Russiagate” the Department would go. He depended on his good “friend” Sessions to “have his back.” Now, with Sessions out of authority, the acting Deputy Attorney General would be in charge. This was originally Dana Boente, a hold over from the Obama Administration and acting as Deputy while serving as the US Attorney for Eastern Virginia. Soon Rod Rosenstein, US Attorney for Maryland, was appointed and approved to the Deputy position.

On May 9^th, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, in what clearly was an attempt to divert the investigation. On May 17^th Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel with broad authority to investigate Russian connections, and any other matters that might arise in the course of the investigation. Rosenstein essentially gave Mueller a “blank check” to investigate the actions both of the Trump campaign, and the individuals who were involved.

All of this was inevitable once Trump’s pick, Sessions, recused himself. Trump needed “protection” from investigation, a protection that he had grown used to as a young developer on the New York scene; protected by Roy Cohn.

Trump—who would remain loyal to Cohn for many years—would be one of the last and most enduring beneficiaries of Cohn’s power. But as Trump would confide in 1980, he already seemed to be trying to distance himself from Cohn’s inevitable taint: “All I can tell you is he’s been vicious to others in his protection of me,” Trump told me, as if to wave away a stench. “He’s a genius. He’s a lousy lawyer, but he’s a genius.” [1]

Roy Cohn died in 1986. To post World War II America, has name was synonymous with Senator Joe McCarthy and the unending and merciless search for Communist subversion in the early 1950’s. Cohn was the twenty-six year old lawyer beside McCarthy in America’s first televised Congressional Hearings, ripping into the State Department, Hollywood, and the military in search of mythical spies. They turned the United States upside down; little but fear came from their quest. When McCarthy finally imploded on alcohol and the righteous presence of attorney Joseph Welch, Cohn returned to New York to practice law.[2]

As an attorney Cohn continued his practice of ruthless action, representing clients ranging from Mafia Dons to real estate developers. He also continued as a behind the scenes organizer for the Republican party, and it was in 1979 that he put his young client, Donald Trump, together with a fundraiser for the Ronald Reagan Presidential campaign, Roger Stone.

When Trump asked, “where’s my Roy Cohn,” what he was really asking is where was the one person who would do anything, moral or immoral, legal or illegal (Cohn was ultimately disbarred just before his death) to protect him. Like many of his personnel choices (Steve Bannon for example), Trump seems to have mistaken Jeff Sessions for someone else. Now he finds few protecting “his back,” and none with the personal loyalty that he ultimately values above all. He is vulnerable and alone, and he knows it.

 

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship

 

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5GlFba5Yg

Button Button who’s got the Button

Wednesday, January 3^rd, 2018 – a day in American politics.

We went into the day with the President back in Washington, and the ramifications of what George Popadoupolos, part of the Trump campaign, revealed in a drunken conversation in May of 2016. He let out that  the Russians had possession of the stolen Clinton emails,  It was  months later that  even the DNC knew they were gone. The Australians eventually notified the US intelligence services (including the FBI), creating probable cause for an investigation.   That Popadoupolos would tell an Australian diplomat, but not tell his own bosses at the Trump campaign, is beyond implausible.

On the “Russiagate” front, the Fusion GPS team revealed that the FBI already was investigating the Trump campaign when Christopher Steele (of the infamous Dossier) felt compelled by what he had found  to inform the agency. In addition, they testified to the House and Senate committees that there was a great deal of information about Trump’s dealings with shady and illegal money from Central America to Russia, much of it through Deutsche Bank. The Fusion GPS statement: the committees have only demanded Fusion GPS bank records, not Trump’s.

On the domestic political front, Steve Bannon has co-authored a book with Michael Wolfe, in which Bannon calls Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner “traitors” for having their meeting with the Russians in June, and states with certainty that after that meeting, the Russians would have been taken to see Trump Sr. This puts the entire Trump defense in jeopardy: if President Trump knew about the Russian meeting and didn’t inform the FBI, this becomes more than “collusion” with the Russians (whatever that word really means,) and reaches the level of conspiracy, a legal term with legal consequences. Trump says that when Bannon was fired from the White House, he lost his mind.

Oh, and President Trump took credit for there being no commercial aircraft deaths in the United States this year.

But the day started with the “big” story: the size of President Trump’s button. This weekend, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made what was a generally conciliatory speech, aimed at opening up negotiations with South Korea. One part of his speech stated that he had a nuclear button on his desk.

Trump’s twitter response:

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

Trump, ignoring the possible negotiations that Kim was offering, instead immediately focused on the “size” of Kim’s button, and made sure to let it be known that HIS button was “…bigger and more powerful than his, and my Button works.”

I wonder if the underlying sexual connotations, obvious to every American sixteen year old boy, translates into Korean. Perhaps the North Koreans are not quite so concerned about the “size of their buttons.” But if they are, and, if Kim is an unbalanced as the Trump Administration is continually stating, then what is President Trump’s intent?

Is he challenging Kim to a “buttoning” contest? Let’s see whose button can – what – push the farthest? And what if Kim, as unbalanced as they claim, takes Trump up on his adolescent game? Are we really chancing a nuclear exchange over a middle school challenge?

Trump clearly believes he can bully Kim into some action, probably trying to force him to negotiate. It seems highly unlikely that Kim will decide to give up his nuclear missiles (a Trump pre-condition) and even more unlikely that “button size” insults will force him to do so.

I used to watch a TV show called “Boston Public.” It was about a high school in Boston, and all of the crazy things that happened there. As a teacher, I’d watch that show and think, “that’s not how schools really are, that’s just drama.” When I became the Dean of Students of a high school (mostly discipline) I discovered a different truth. What happened on Boston Public all really did happen in public school, it just didn’t all happen one day in real life.

There must be a whole lot of Washington veteran politicians who are thinking the same thing. Except, this really is happening, all in one day. Whew!!!!

The Case for Donald Trump

It doesn’t take much to convince “the Resistance” that Donald Trump conspired with the Russian Government to “steal” the Presidency. Charges range from violations of the Federal Campaign Laws to laundering Russian money to breaking the Federal Espionage Act to committing Treason. And yet, the President, his supporters, and the Republicans in Congress continue to act as if all of this is merely a political move, and has nothing to do with legal fact.

The Resistance view is fueled by the same source that drove the election: social media. Read twitter: all of the evidence is already out there, and the removal of Trump is assured. We simply are waiting for the process to catch up with the facts. And while it is sometimes difficult to sort out the “crazies” from the “serious” (on a range from Louise Mensch to Eric Garland to Claude Taylor to Seth Abrahamson to Malcolm Nance) they all speak with a certainty of fact.

But Trump and his lawyers continue to raise multiple points to counter the swell of information.   The President carries on as if nothing is out there, and the Administration continues to disassemble the “Deep State.”

The first, and probably most effective Trump defense, is that the entire “Russiagate” investigation is founded on an illegitimate source, and therefore is entirely invalid: the infamous Steele Dossier. Their argument is that the Dossier is actually the only evidence of campaign “collusion” with the Russian Government, but that it actually shows that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that was colluding!  The logic is that Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign (or firms acting on her behalf) to contact and gain information from Russian intelligence officers, gaining the benefit of information for the campaign. This violates the Federal Campaign Act prohibiting foreign contributions (in kind) to US campaigns.

The argument continues that the Russians passed disinformation about Trump to Steele, with the intent to disrupt the election, and that the Clinton campaign paid for it. When this disinformation reached the FBI, it served as the “probable cause” to begin all of the investigations into Trump, the campaign, and his family. Since that “probable cause” was, in their view, Russian disinformation, then the entire investigation is “tainted” and invalid. This also explains the intense interest of the House Intelligence Committee Republicans in the report, its author Christopher Steele, and GPS Fusion (the company that hired him.)

This weekend’s news (New York Times) that the FBI received the original information about possible Trump campaign infractions from an Australian intelligence source puts a dent in the “fruit of the poisonous tree” Trump defense, but doesn’t end it, yet.  The article states that Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadoupolos informed an Australian diplomat (using the traditional intelligence gathering technique of getting the informant drunk) about the hacked Democratic emails long before it was public knowledge.

The second line of defense is that the investigation is really a conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States, led by the professional elite of the FBI with help from the other intelligence agencies. A quick look at a selected text between FBI agent Peter Storzk to Lisa Page, a Department of Justice attorney, reveals this gem:

 “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 … “

This bit of evidence, combined with the Obama’ era intelligence chiefs reporting Russian interference to Trump (the famous meeting when Comey told Trump about the “golden showers”) leads to the Trump ultimate conspiracy, the “Deep State” takeover. Intelligence agency interference in the election would explain why Comey violated Department of Justice protocols in announcing the results of the Clinton email investigation (the July, “there are no charges here” speech) then continued to violate with the October “surprises.” While to the “Resistance” this all seems to be outlandish conspiracy theory (both the term and the movie) from the Trump side it fits into their preconceived notions of our government.

The outcome will depend on Congress and specifically Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell. If the evidence from the Mueller investigation (or the House or Senate investigations) doesn’t convince them of overarching criminal activity by the Trumps, then it will be easy to rise to the President’s defensive strategy. The evidence would have to be so damning, that it would be in the Republican self-interest to jettison the President (as was the 1974 evidence against Nixon.) It will have to be more than just twitter supposition, and it will require enough to overcome the conspiracy theories of both the left and the right.