Category: Uncategorized

Criticism or Anti-Semitism

“It’s all about the Benjamin’s Baby!! 

Tweet from Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in response to Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s criticism of her stand about Palestinians and Israel

Ilhan Omar, newly elected Representative to Congress from Minnesota, is a Muslim woman originally born in Somalia.  She has been highly critical of Israel’s policy on Palestinians.  Her tweet above, implying that Israel’s Republican backers in the US are getting paid off, raised a firestorm.  Both Democrats and Republicans condemned her for using anti-Semitic imagery:  Jews and money.

In full disclosure, my father was Jewish and my mother Catholic.  I was raised in the Episcopal Church (as close as Mom could get to Catholicism) but also surrounded with Jewish family and friends.  I was also raised to support Israel and Zionism, taking my view in part from Leon Uris’s book Exodus.  I saw the founding of Israel as a heroic struggle of a people to regain their ancestral homeland, and of literally making gardens out of desert.

In college in the 1970’s I continued to study the Middle East, and developed a more nuanced view of history.  The emergence of world terrorism, from the Munich Olympic massacre to airplane hijackings and bombing attacks; made me look more closely at the fate of the Palestinians.  They were the political pawns in Israel’s founding; used by both sides as “the cause” for attacks and wars.  Of any ethnic group in the Middle East, they had the least control over their own destiny. Their terrorist acts were (and are) morally abhorrent, but, were also a foreseeable outcome of their political helplessness.  

The United States has been a strong backer of Israel throughout my lifetime, and continues to be. Israel however, has altered its view of Palestinians.  The “two-state solution” with a Palestinian and Israeli nation co-existing, was the foundation of US policy in the Middle East since President Jimmy Carter got Israel’s Begin to shake hands with Egypt’s Sadat at Camp David.

But, the current leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems more interested in containing and controlling Palestinians rather than establishing a dual state.  The Palestinians also have become even more radicalized, and Israeli responses to Palestinian actions have often been brutal and inhumane.

Here in the United States, our politics have allowed criticism of Israel to be considered anti-Semitic.  Omar blamed the money pro-Israeli sources are donating to American politicians for causing their attacks on her.  There is the anti-Semitic image of “Jews and money,” one that Congresswoman Omar accidently or intentionally invoked in her tweet.  But there is also the reality that Israel is using their US supporters to finance those politicians that give them support.

Netanyahu is well aware of the machinations of American politics.  Born in Israel, he went to high school in Philadelphia, and returned after Israeli military service to get his college education at MIT.  He was later the Israeli ambassador to the US, and friends with Mitt Romney and President Trump’s father.

One of Prime Minister’s Netanyahu’s sponsors in the United States is Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is also a prime supporter of President Trump.  Adelson put over $100 million into the GOP 2018 election campaign. The pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American-Israel Policy Committee (AIPAC) can’t donate directly to politicians, but spent $3.5 million lobbying for current Israeli policy.  Pro-Israeli donations to politicians go to both sides of the aisle, with Democrats getting more than half.  

So while I recognize the ethnic insensitivity in Omar’s tweets, I can also recognize that the lobbying forces backing Israel are unrelenting, leaving little room for discussion about the policies of their government.  Criticism is met with “anti-Semitic” force. 

Israel is the only democracy existing in the Middle East, and the United States and Israel are powerful friends.  But friendship doesn’t mean unflinching support of every action.  Friends sometimes have to tell friends hard news, something that President Obama was willing to do with Israel.  Not every criticism of Israeli policy can be tossed as anti-Semitic, and not everything Israel does under the umbrella of “survival” is right.

We have become a political world of absolutes and tweets.  There is little space for a nuanced view of the world; if someone criticizes Israel, or supports Palestinians, then they are immediately attacked.  Congresswoman Omar should “know better” than the imagery she created in her tweet, but Americans should be able to question the policies of the Netanyahu’s administration without being trolled as anti-Semitic.  

Homeward Through the Haze*

*Thanks to David Crosby for the title – here’s the song

The President of the United States, echoed by his supporters and many of my more conservative friends, consistently claims “no collusion with Rush-sha” and “no evidence of collusion.” It is the current main attack on the Mueller investigation; that with all thirty-four of their indictments, they haven’t established “collusion,” or in a more legally correct way, they haven’t demonstrated the legal elements  of conspiracy. Even with four members of the Trump campaign convicted for offenses, the outline of conspiracy is still shrouded in the haze of the ongoing investigation.

Conspiracy is the legal “crime” underlying the laymen’s term of collusion. Conspiracy consists of:

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy’s “target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy’s goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.  (Cornell Law Library)

What is now emerging from the public reporting and the indictments are three areas where the Mueller team may have found the elements of an illegal conspiracy.  To look at those, we first have to understand the possible “goals” of the illegal agreement. 

From the Trump side there are three possible goals.  The first, as we now know, was the desire of the Trump Organization to build Trump Tower Moscow.  It was “played off” by the Trump’s as a deal that never was more than a dream, but we know now from Michael Cohen’s testimony that they were continuing to pursue the Moscow deal up until the November general election of 2016.  The deal even went so far as an offer to Vladimir Putin for a penthouse suite.

The second area of Russian cooperation was in securing Trump financing over the past several years.  We know that the Trump Organization was unable to get loans from US banks after the failure of the New Jersey Casinos in the 1990’s.  Yet Trump was able to get financing from European banks, particularly Germany’s Deutsche Bank, even after he sued that bank for billions to avoid making a $40 million dollar payment that was due.  We also know that Deutsche Bank has acted as a “money launderer” for the Russian oligarchs surrounding Vladimir Putin.

And the third Trump goal was to win the Presidency, with Russian help.  The use of emails stolen by Russian Intelligence from the Democratic National Committee; “laundered” through the Wikileaks website, clearly benefited the Trump candidacy.  The essential “middleman” between Wikileaks acting as a Russian agent and the campaign is potentially Roger Stone.  In addition, Russian social media strategy was carefully targeted, and we recently found out that some of that targeting information came from the campaign itself through Paul Manafort.  There are also Russian contacts to Cambridge Analytica, the Mercer funded political analytics firm hired by the Trump Campaign, with future Trump Campaign Chairman Steve Bannon as Vice President.

Bannon, Manafort, Stone, Mercer:  all had powerful connections to the Trump Campaign (Mercer and his daughter essentially provided the leadership of the campaign, Bannon and Conway, for the general election.)  And, all seem to have some connection to Russia.

And what would the “quid pro quo” be for the Russians, what would they get in return for all of this aid to the Trump Organization and campaign?  We know that Manafort was in contact with “associate” Konstantin Kiliminick (also indicted by Mueller.)  Kiliminick claimed to be a part of Russian military intelligence (GRU) and worked with Manafort in support of the Russian backed President of Ukraine.  They continued to communicate throughout the Trump Campaign, on into the beginning of the Trump Presidency, and even after Manafort was under indictment.  

Part of their discussions involved a Russian backed peace deal with the Ukraine, one that would advantage the Russians.  US influence directed by the Trump Presidency would be extremely helpful to the Russians, as the US in the past was a strong advocate for the anti-Russian Ukrainian government.

The second benefit, and an ultimate goal of Russian policy towards the United States, was the lifting of sanctions placed on Russian individuals and banks.  Sanctions prevented Russian oligarchs from investing in US companies, and made it difficult for them to move their money out of a more volatile Russia into safer US banks.  It also prevented Russian banks from investing in US companies, reducing their influence in American affairs.  Recently the US Treasury Department reduced sanctions on one Russian oligarch close to Trump campaign members, Oleg Deripaska.

And the third, and perhaps most concerning benefit is the impact of US policy on world alliances.  President Trump supported Brexit, encouraging the dis-union of Europe.  He has consistently threatened the stability of NATO, and even suggested we might withdraw from the organization.  And he is pursuing a tariff policy that is hostile to “friends,” shaking long-time traditional alliances.  A disunited world places Russia at a greater advantage. Though small economically (11^thworldwide by GDP,) modern Russia still has the second most powerful military force.  A divided west makes Russia relatively more powerful.

It’s still hazy.  The information isn’t yet in the clear legal form of court, and it may not ever get to that stage.  The Congress may be forced to deal with a lot of connections, but no “smoking gun.” But we now have a better idea what the Trump organization and the Russians had to gain in cooperation, and we can see the outlines of conspiracy.  And it answers a nagging question we’ve had since the beginning of the Trump Administration: Flynn, Kushner, Papadoupolos, Cohen, Stone, Manafort, Don Jr, and Donald Trump the President; why did they all lie to the American people and perhaps to Congress and the Special Counsel?  

The investigation is coming home, homeward through the haze.

Equity and Absolution

Senator Elizabeth Warren announced that she was running for President on Saturday.  Warren has been a “star” of the Democratic left, and has championed consumer rights throughout her career, including acting as the “founding mother” of the Federal Consumer Protection Bureau.  

President Trump, with his eagle eye for exposing his opponents’ vulnerabilities, has honed in on Warren’s heritage.  Warren, born and raised in Oklahoma, was told by her parents that she was of Native-American ancestry.   While Trump wasn’t the first to question her background, he raised the issue to a national level, using the slanderous nickname of “Pocahontas” to hold her up to ridicule. After her announcement this weekend, Trump tweeted the following:

Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz – Donald Trump, Tweet, 2/9/19

This is the “reality TV” Presidency, so it really is no surprise that the President sounds more like someone trying to stay “on the island” than the leader of the free world.  Unfortunately, what should have been a jarring and inappropriate statement by Trump, is now commonplace and accepted.  His use of  “TRAIL” is an obvious reference to the Trail of Tears, a Presidential order resulting in the death of more than 15,000 Native Americans. For Trump to use that horrific Presidential action as a “dig” at Warren, not only demonstrates how far he will go, but how far the American people have fallen.

It seems we have given Trump absolution for anything he might do or say, whether it’s fourth grade style insults, or serious sexual assaults.  His election is seen, at least by those that supported him, as “cleansing” him of previous “sin” and giving him license to commit more. 

To Democrats now come the hard choices of equity and absolution.  If the President, and the newest member of the United States Supreme Court, are given absolution for their actions by their arrival in office, what should Democrats do with their leaders who commit “sins?”  The Party previously set the standard with Senator Al Franken, forcing him to resign his post because of a Roger Stone backed story of sexual harassment.  With that as the marker, we enter the “new era” of political correctness.

All of which has come to a head in Virginia.  The Governor and the next two officials in line for his office, have all been accused of offenses.  Governor Mark Northam admits to having worn “black face” in a “dance contest” when he was a medical student at twenty-five.  And while he is “sorry,” he really doesn’t seem to get it, publicly discussing the difficulty of getting shoe polish off his face, and seeming to be willing to reenact his dance moves of 1984.

The Lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax, has two women claiming he sexually assaulted them, one as late as 2004.  One of these accusations came forward two years ago, the other just this week.  And finally, the State Attorney General, Mark Herring, next in line for the Governorship, has also admitted to wearing black face in his youth, when he was a college freshman at nineteen.

The publication of these scandals originates from “alt-right” sources, like the Franken story, raising questions as to their veracity.  For that reason alone, the “steamroller” of resignation should be slowed until there is confirmation of truth.  But should all three situations be determined valid, Democrats have a problem.

According to the “Franken Rule” all three should resign.  According to “equity” with the Republicans, perhaps they should all stay.  And according to common fairness, all three should be judged on their own merits, and not be thrown into the same “pot.”

And then there are the politics of the politics.  If Northam resigns, and Fairfax refuses to, Democrats are faced with an accused sex assaulter as Governor of Virginia, something that the #METOO core of the Democratic Party cannot condone.  If Northam AND Fairfax resign, then Democrats have to deal with the youthful mistake of the Attorney General, perhaps a transgression more likely to be forgiven.  But if all three resign, a Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates would take over, changing the balance of elected Virginia government.  

Northam has nothing to lose by staying, and an entire career to lose by resigning.  The political realities for Fairfax and Herring are the same, leaving office means ending their careers.  So all three are likely to stay, for at least as long as they can, and not take the “high road” of resignation that Al Franken chose. Republicans will then hang their transgressions on the entire national Democratic Party, regardless of the fact that Republicans have done the same or worse.   

It isn’t fair, but for the Democratic Party to demonstrate a difference from the “reality TV” world of Trump, they have to continue to defend the line that began with Franken’s resignation.  Democrats cannot accept “equity” with the actions of Trump and Kavanaugh and maintain the standard that their minority and #METOO base demands. Virginia politicians need to work out a process to keep a Democrat in the governorship, but in the end, to define Democratic political difference, there can be no absolution for the sins in Virginia.

Friday with Matt

I spent Friday with Matt Whitaker and the House Committee for the Judiciary; at least they had part of my attention.  We are going on vacation, trying to dodge some of Ohio’s wonderful winter weather, and we literally broke the piggy banks.  So while I listened to Mr. Nadler of New York, the Democratic Chairman, Mr. Collins of Georgia, the Ranking Minority Member and the Acting Attorney General; Jenn and I managed to count and roll about $686 worth of change:  hotel in Pensacola covered!

So what did Mr. Whitaker have to say to the Committee, in this first Congressional Democratic crack at the Trump Administration?   

He began by saying that he would not discuss conversations he had with either President Trump or the Senior White House staff.  He made that clear, but then proceeded to tell what he hadn’t discussed with either of them:  the Mueller investigation.  He made it clear that he wouldn’t talk about what he knew about the Mueller investigation, despite the fact he had already publicly discussed how soon it would end in his famous, “melt down” press conference.  But then, he also made it clear that he had not interfered with the Special Counsel, nor had he been asked to approve or disapprove his actions.

After six hours of testimony, we got that:  Whitaker let Mr. Mueller do what he had to do, and hadn’t interfered.  We also got that he thought Mueller was a trustworthy and forthright man, who wasn’t running a “witch-hunt,” though he was unwilling to tell that to the President saying to Eric Swalwell of California, “I am not a puppet to repeat what you say.”  

What we didn’t get was a person prepared to run the Justice Department, even though he has a scant few days left in the job.  He was unprepared to answer questions on the child separation policy, what he insisted on calling “zero tolerance;” a policy he was a critical part of creating as Jeff Session’s chief of staff.  He seemed unable to recall the tax status or other critical details of the Foundation for Accountability and Trust, an organization he served as Executive Director and sole paid employee, for two years.  And he was unwilling to acknowledge that his own Federal Bureau of Investigation’s statistics on crime in El Paso, Texas were correct, and that the President was wrong.  

Whitaker was prepared for a fight.  For the first session of the hearing, he was flippant, arrogant, and disrespectful to Chairman Nadler and Democratic members of the Committee.  “I know that question is important to you” and “thank you for that question” led off almost every answer, with long soliloquies ending with the phrase, “…as a sit hear today,” and of course “…I see your five minutes have expired” directed to the Chairman.   But oddly, he didn’t seem able to answer the “softball” questions of Republican members as well, including Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan.  Whitaker’s “handlers” must have had some words during the first break, as the Acting General came back with shorter and much less hostile answers (though his prodigious consumption of water was impressive, as was his hot-mike comment, “…only five minutes for lunch?”)

So after the much-anticipated showdown between the Congressional Democrats and the “pretender” Attorney General, the outcomes were clear.  Whitaker, absent having committed perjury, has left the Mueller investigation to proceed apace.  The greatest fear, that Whitaker, who spoke on CNN of “starving the Special Counsel” by cutting funding, chose not to follow through on his threats.  

And we learned one more thing:  the United States, Trumpest or Resistor, will be a lot better off when Bill Barr is confirmed by the US Senate and takes charge at Justice.  He is “an adult” in the room, and a man of legal capacity. Neither a caretaker, nor a “mole” for the President, he is a man of his own standing.  While Democrats won’t agree with much of what Attorney General Barr believes, I believe he will protect the integrity of the Justice Department, and the nation.  And besides, he’s one of Robert Mueller’s best friends, something the Trump Administration must have missed in their vetting process.

The Victim: Donald Trump

The President of the United States delivered his “State of the Union” address on Tuesday.  It was the longest in American history, full of introductions of special guests; from Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, to a nine-year-old cancer survivor.  It seemed like a pretty normal State of the Union, even ending in the traditional “…God Bless America.”  There was talk of all of the accomplishments of the past and hopes for future legislation. There were even the expected shots at Democrats over the Wall and abortion; and after the speech, reams of fact-checking corrections.

But, awkwardly placed in the speech (and with incorrect grammar) there was the “kicker” clause:

“… An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing (sic)that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

“Peace and legislation, or war and investigation,” this is the choice the President presented. Or to put it more bluntly:  “leave me alone, Democrats in the House, and we can legislate together.  Investigate me, and it means war.”

Trump is facing investigations from multiple House committees: Judiciary (Nadler), Oversight (Cummings), Intelligence (Schiff), and Financial Services (Trump’s favorite, Maxine Waters.)  They aren’t waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude, the Southern District of New York’s work, or the varying state and civil cases advancing. They are going to investigate the President – so he’s “off the hook”  on the need to legislate, according to him.

It’s too bad.  There’s lots to get done, including avoiding a government shutdown next week.  If Trump’s legacy is going to be anything more than appointing judges, separating children, and making the rich richer; he needs to get some things done in law. But that’s probably not in the cards.

So the investigations continue.  Today Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker is supposed to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee.  The Committee and Whittaker have been involved in an odd dance over his appearance; with Whittaker saying he won’t testify if subpoenaed, and the committee saying that won’t subpoena him if he testifies.  I guess we will all hold our breath to see if he shows up, or answers questions if he does:  the Committee has given him a cheat sheet to study up on.  Hopefully he’s found a way to manage the stress; his last appearance almost drowned the podium in sweat.

On Thursday, the President tweeted:

So now Congressman Adam Schiff announces, after having found zero Russian Collusion, that he is going to be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so. Never happened before! Unlimited Presidential Harassment….

The Intelligence Committee reached the “no collusion” conclusion under the leadership of Republican Chairman Devin Nunes last year.  With Democrats now in control and perjury charges made against several witnesses, Schiff is going back into the investigation.  

And the President, arguably the most powerful man in the world, is now a poor, sad, helpless victim.  He is being Harassed, and will soon be making the case that he is unable to do his job because the investigations.  It is the new tactic in the ongoing battle:  the investigations are impairing the President.  And if investigations do that, what would any further action in the Courts or, heaven forbid, the “I” word (impeachment) do?  

Donald Trump has often used language to underline his personal strength. When he talks about the wall;  “strong, beautiful, long,” it’s almost in pornographic terms.  He constantly speaks of the power of his supporters, the “good old” Americans with the MAGA hats on.  He wields his twitter account like a sledgehammer, bashing anyone who opposes him.

But now Trump is a victim.  No matter your side on the ultimate questions of Trump, it’s a sad image of the United States Presidency, one that will not only impact the current domestic crisis, but America’s standing in the world.  No one respects the victim:  ask Vladimir Putin.

Two Years Later

It’s been more than two years since Donald J Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States.  Two years of America being on a constant knife-edge, worrying about what the next daily crisis would bring.  Two years where our sensibilities have been dulled:  to lying, to cruelty, and to institutional racism. Two years of adrenalin and fear, of less sleep and more “shock and awe” at the lengths the Administration would go to change America into their “America” (hard not to spell it without a ‘k’.)

I can relate to those folks who say they haven’t slept right since election night, 2016:  me neither. 

Two years ago at the urging of my niece Leslie, I began to do my part to resist the Trump Administration. I didn’t want the actions of the President to be normalized.  I hoped that by writing, I could explain them in the context of what should be “normal” in a real world without Trump.  In addition, as a history teacher I wanted to bring historical context to current issues, and, as the power of the new “Federalism” grew, I hoped to serve as a guide to what those Court appointees might decide.  And finally, I tried to advocate for positive change, and “resist” the negative changes going on all around us.

It was supposed to be a once a week thing, and originally it was going to be more of a podcast than an essay (yes you’re right, I really don’t like the word blog – I think of that as a diary or stream of consciousness kind of thing.)  However, like all things dealing with broadcast, I found podcasting takes a lot of production time to do correctly. What I wanted to do was get my ideas out, so it was the traditional essay format that won out. It ain’t the Federalist Papers but I am trying!

 As events occurred, and I grew more accustomed to writing.  It moved to every other day, and now, almost every weekday.  In the past two years there are over four hundred essays in “Trump World,” more than 300,000 words (or a 600 page book – though that’s not coming!!!)  Originally it was just for “friends,” both through email and later on Facebook.  But then things got more involved, and now besides the original dozen or so friends who still get the “New Post on Trump World” emails, there’s 450 subscribers (including several with “@rt” emails – that’s Russia Television) and all the folks who read on Facebook.  In the past several months essays have been read over one thousand times each month, by folks in over forty countries.

So I know that people are reading.  I also know that there are a whole lot of folks that disagree with what I’m saying. Most read it and move on, a few make comments and want to discuss.  And an even smaller few have been enraged by what I had to say.  A couple have become so hostile that I have had to “cut them off” from access to my writing.  I’ve been called “disgusting” and a “traitor” – but I’ve also been called a “liberal” and a “Democrat” – labels I’m quite happy to accept.

So two years in, on the day after Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address, what is the state of the Resistance?  In the “win” column; the Affordable Care Act is shaken but not broken, the House of Representatives is under Democratic control, we aren’t in any new wars (nor out of any old wars), and the Mueller investigation and the “Sovereign District of New York” are still investigating away.  In the “loss” column; Trump is still the President of the United States, the tax giveaway has depleted Federal funding and exploded the deficit, the Courts are filled with members of the Federalist Society, and the ideas that we took for granted, like the US being the leader of the free world and protector of the defenseless, are no longer guaranteed.

I still have hope that President Trump will be shown to have done so much wrong in the election of 2016 that he will be removed from office, but if not, we can endure.  Our nation is even more durable than we thought: we have survived the first two years, we can survive two more if necessary.  Either way, the “Resistance” must make sure that the outcome of the 2020 election puts America back on the right course, to really Make America OK Again (or MAOKA – hashtag that!!)  We cannot allow the internecine fighting of 2016 that so damaged Hillary Clinton’s election to occur again.  We must be on guard for the “fifth column” of Russian social media or electoral intervention, and we need to recognize that others, including those in the US, will have learned from the Russians of 2016 and will try to do the same things.  The enemy may be within this time, rather than without.

And I’ll keep writing, both to express and to persuade.   Maybe I can find some more conservative friends who are willing to recognize that while they don’t agree with much of what I espouse, they are willing to do anything to avoid the past four years.  If not, we all need to show up and make a difference, every time the polls are open.  That’s not just resistance, that’s taking command of the future.  

Crimes Against Humanity

I grew up in the sixties. During that time, some Americans had the “John Wayne” view:  we were the “good guys” in the “white hats” riding in to save the world, or at least the settlers in the wagon train.  We, the United States, “did good.”  And at the same time, the “not good” parts of America’s actions were being thrust onto our TV screens and into our faces:  the need for civil rights marches, the summer riots in the cities, the protests against the War, and the nightly visions of death and destruction in Vietnam. 

This has been the historic place of the United States, a nation founded on principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that from the moment of its inception failed to live up to that standard.  The inherent conflict of the founding fathers, fighting for their independence from Great Britain while holding other humans in bondage, has haunted our heritage. 

They knew that what they said and did was important.  Washington and Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison, Paine and Henry; they wrote and spoke not just for the present, but for the future.  They knew:  the awkward wording of “more perfect union” in the Constitution was not a grammatical flaw, but a recognition of the hope that future generations would redress the wrongs they committed.

The horrors of World War II, beyond even the extremes of modern warfare, led us to find a way to describe actions so far out of bounds that they are never acceptable.  First defined as War Crimes, the end of the war saw the attempt to hold individuals responsible for their horrific acts. Unlike historic “retribution” at the end of war, lining defeated enemies in front of a firing squad; this was an attempt to seek justice for those consumed as part of the horrific ideology of Nazism.  

Out of those trials came a concept that was even greater than warfare:  crimes against humanity.  The idea is that nation/states can commit actions against civilians in war or in peace that are outside of the boundaries of human decency, and that they could be held accountable for those actions in the eyes of the world.  If a crime is committed, then a place of justice must be found that can hear evidence and reach conclusions about that crime.  The world has created the World Court in the Hague, including the International Criminal Court (adjudicating individuals) and the International Court of Justice (adjudicating countries.)

It is a crime against humanity if a country commits:

 “…as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:… (items ‘a’ through ‘h’)

i.    Enforced disappearance of persons…; (item ‘j’)

• Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

(1998 Rome Accord.)

The government of the United States, with planning and intent, took away the children of migrants crossing the Southern Border and separated them from their parents.  They placed those children in often far-away facilities, without safeguards or intentions of re-uniting them to those parents, and for the express purpose of creating in migrant populations a fear of losing their children if they crossed the border.

The government of the United States not only did this during the “known” time of April 2018 to July of 2018, but was actually separating children much earlier.  The United States government, in responding in US Federal Courts, has now admitted that thousands of children were transferred to facilities and are unaccounted for (Reuters.)  

The United States government, in the name of its citizens, has stolen children from their parents. Many, perhaps thousands of those children are unaccounted for today, and surely some of those children have been “disappeared” into the US foster and adoption system, and will never be returned to their parents.  

This was a planned policy, emanating from the highest levels of the White House and the Justice Department, implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services.  This was not a “rogue” action of a few on the border; it was a concerted action of the United States government, a policy whose outcome, “disappeared children,” was not only foreseeable, but the expressed intent of the government.

This is not how the “good guys in the white hats” behave.  This is not how we expect our government to act.  This is not what our founding fathers intended for their “more perfect union.”  In fact, it is difficult to see why the US government should not be held accountable for these actions; these crimes against children, and migrants; and against humanity.

Sins of the Past

Ralph Northam was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2017.  He was part of a Democratic revival in the state; the party did well in legislative elections and won all of the statewide offices. The two major factors in the return of the Democrats to power were the changing nature of the Northern Virginia suburbs and, the increase in African-American votes. Both led to Democratic victories.

Northam has a legislative history of progressive action, including furthering civil rights, and taking a clear stand on the racist attacks at Charlottesville.  Born and raised in Virginia, he was educated at the Virginia Military Institute (1981) and Eastern Virginia Medical School (1984), then served in the Army Medical Corps for eight years, rising to the rank of Major. He left the military to become a pediatric neurologist in Norfolk before running for state senate in 2008, becoming Lieutenant Governor in 2013, and winning the Governor’s race in 2017.

So it was with a great deal of shock that Virginia and the rest of the nation learned that Northam was pictured in black-face next to a person dressed in KKK hoods and robes in his Medical School yearbook.  Even more surprising was the racist college nickname given to Northam at VMI, “Coonman.” 

The yearbook picture was discovered by a “media organization” called “Big League Politics,” founded by two alumni from the far-right Breitbart site.  While their “axe to grind” with Northam is clear; it was an example of the kind of information that any good political opposition research would unearth; it is remarkable that the picture had not been revealed before.

Almost unanimously, Democrats in Virginia and across the nation called for Northam to resign from the Governorship.  While he remains in office, it is difficult to see a path forward that would allow him to govern effectively.  

There are two issues here. The first is a process one:  why would and how could Northam run for office with this in his background, without in some way dealing with it.  This skeleton in his closet has been there to be discovered the whole time; any reasonable politician would realize that the longer it stayed there, the more powerful the impact of its revelation would be.  

And second, where is the “heart” of Ralph Northam?  Is he a racist at heart, even though a progressive in action, or is there some other explanation of his actions in the 1980’s that could excuse him today?

Many folks have things they did earlier in their lives that they aren’t proud of.  Ralph Northam acted as a racist, at least in college and medical school.  His political actions have shown that he doesn’t act like one now, but that racist past should have been brought out and dealt with politically.  And while some will argue that historic figures like Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black were actual members of the Ku Klux Klan; that was in the 1920’s (Black) and the 1940’s (Byrd) not the 1980’s. 

Others would argue that, like newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, these actions were done when he was young.  Kavanaugh was accused of sex crimes in high school and college but Northam was twenty-five years old, in medical school, when the black-face picture was taken. At what point is “adulthood” bestowed?

Then Northam, after apologizing for the picture, came back the next day to claim it really wasn’t him, then confessed to having appeared in black-face in at least one other event. He even went on to describe the difficulties in applying shoe polish as black-face, and seemed to be considering doing a Michael Jackson “moonwalk” in the press conference.

While his legislative actions show a progressive view of race, his words, even in the press conference, show that he still doesn’t understand the gravity of his actions as a younger man, and the impact they are having today.  It seems that he still regards them as somehow being “cute” or “funny.”

The process that the politician Northam is using is “awful.”  He allowed this albatross to hang around his neck, far into his political career, then when it was revealed, he apologized for it, then denied it, then made apparent light of his actions.  While these may be the words of a desperate man, trying to control damage, what it revealed is a man who continues to misunderstand the gravity of his actions.

And that is the real point: he still doesn’t get it, not in 1984, and not now in 2019 either.  And for this reason, his current actions:  Ralph Northam should resign.  He should let those who DO get it, get on with the work of governing and uniting Virginia.

Democratic Differences

It’s “spring-time” in the Democratic Party, and the Presidential candidates are peeking out of the fertile anti-Trump garden.  Like the flowers of the spring, some will blossom, and others wither.  Some are familiar; Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro.  

Others are new to people: Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang.  At least one, Howard Schultz is an unwelcome “weed” threatening to take up resources.  Of course, there are still those bulbs waiting to appear:  Biden, Bloomberg, Holder, Klobuchar and “Beto.”  And finally there are those mystery seeds that we don’t even know about yet.

Conservative commentators are excited:  they see the plethora of candidates as evidence of fractures in the Party, divisions from the left middle to the left to the far left; Bloomberg to Biden to Booker to Warren (aw, if only Buttigieg would fit) and far to the non-candidate, Ocasio-Cortez.  They see the Democratic Party being dragged so far to the left that the great “purple” center of America is deserted, leaving it open to re-capture by a resurgent Trump saying “I’m all you have.”

So let’s start with the “weed” in the garden, the independent candidacy of Starbucks’ Chairman Emeritus Howard Schultz.  Schultz sees himself as an “abandoned” Democrat; left behind by the leftward lurch of the Party.  He disagrees with “Medicare for all” and other forms of national health insurance, seeing the Affordable Care Act as the end limit.   Schultz feels the same way about government financing of higher education and raising the national minimum wage, simply saying “we can’t afford it.” 

Like the Mitt Romney incarnation as governor of Massachusetts, Schultz really represents the old-school center-right Republicans, a breed now largely extinct.  And for those who raise Ohio’s Governor Kasich as a surviving example, they have missed the shift; Kasich is really a Republican-Conservative of twenty years ago.  He hasn’t gone anywhere, but his Party his gone so far-right, he’s all that looks like it’s in the center.  Even the Utah-incarnation of Romney has moved farther to the right.

And for those who claim that the Affordable Care Act is a “left-wing” radical proposal foisted on the country, it is good to remember that the concepts originated in 1989 from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank financed in part by Joseph Coors, scion of the ultra-conservative Coors brewing family. The tenets of the Affordable Care Act were first put into law as “Romney-care” for the state of Massachusetts while Republican Romney was governor.  

Democrats agreed on the Affordable Care Act under President Obama as a compromise they hoped Republicans could join.  This was despite strong Democratic support for a “single payer” system with a federal program displacing individual insurance companies, and health insurance not linked to employment.  Following Senator Mitch McConnell’s lead, Republicans in Congress refused to vote for any compromise in order to prevent an Obama victory, so Democrats were left alone to pass the Act.

All this shows that the Affordable Care Act type government health insurance denotes the right limit of the Democratic Party.  It should be no surprise that most mainstream Democratic Presidential candidates are looking at greater government involvement in paying for health care, the center of the Party is closer to “Medicare for All” (for a further dissection of health care proposals – see this earlier essay on Trump World – Health Insurance.)

The point then, is that the Democrats aren’t a “fractured” party; dividing over the issues of health care, education costs, and minimum wages.  All Democrats are in favor of some form of improvement in each of these areas, the differences are how much and how soon.   This was, by the way, the situation in 2016 with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; it wasn’t a matter of policy disagreement, but rather one of policy degree.

If raising minimum wage and reducing income inequality, providing affordable health care, making our nation more inclusive and reducing the debt-burden of education is “left-wing,” then the Democratic Party is left wing.  It will be the task of all the “budding flowers” of the Party to explain why their solutions to these problems should appeal to all Americans, particularly those who are left out of the American dream.  They will have a thorough, and probably raucous debate.  Ultimately Democrats will pluck one to speak for the Party, and run against Trump or whoever is left after his collapse. 

In our incredibly polarized nation, we will see whether labels, left, center or right, will prevail; or whether the needs and wants of the majority of Americans will overcome the divisive pressure to pick a side or a color.  It will be up to the Democrats to persuade the vast “center” of America that, regardless of right-wing evangelism, it is the Democrats that have their best interests at heart.

Fox Conn or Trump Con

It was the middle of the 2016 general election.  Trump’s analytic team discovered they had a chance of winning Wisconsin.  With the state voting system already tilted Republican by the questionable efforts of Governor Scott Walker, Republican Party Chairman Reince Preibus, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan; it would only take some “convincing” to push Wisconsin into the “win” column.  

The major Republican regions of Wisconsin are agricultural: the famous “cheese-head” dairy farmers who were voting for Trump regardless.  But it was in the more urban areas around Milwaukee and Green Bay that Trump’s message of “ Making America Great Again” by bringing back industrial employment found appeal.  Walker and Trump touted the coming of Foxconn, a Chinese based manufacturer; bringing 13,000 jobs to the state.  Foxconn makes high-tech screens for I-Phones and other devices.

On the announcement that Foxconn was coming, candidate Trump announced:

“The construction of this facility represents the return of LCD electronics and electronic manufacturing to the United States, the country that we love. That’s where we want our jobs. To make such an incredible investment, Chairman Gou put his faith and confidence in the future of the American economy — in other words if I didn’t get elected he definitely would not be.”

The promise of manufacturing jobs made a difference.  Out of almost three million votes cast for President, Trump gained 1,405,284 to Clinton’s 1,382,536:   22,748 votes or two thirds of one percent to win the ten Wisconsin electoral votes.

This week, Foxconn announced that they aren’t going to build a manufacturing plant on the site.  They are now looking at a “technology hub,” and while some manufacturing will be done, the 13,000 promised jobs are now uncertain.  

In October of 2016, Carrier announced that it would be closing its plants in Indianapolis and Huntington, Indiana, and moving its operation to Mexico.  Candidate Trump, and more importantly his running mate former Indiana Governor Mike Pence, went to work to “save the Carrier jobs.” Their apparent success was touted as the kind of impact a “business” President could have.  While it didn’t determine the voting outcome in Indiana, it did make a difference in the “blue wall” states nearby, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  

A year later, Carrier announced layoffs at the Indianapolis plant.  Five production lines have been reduced to three, and 2000 jobs reduced to 700. The Huntington plant will soon stop manufacturing all together, with only salaried workers remaining doing research, design and customer service.

The President promised the workers of Youngstown that they didn’t need to move, jobs were coming back. Last month, General Motors decided to close the Lordstown assembly plant.  The famous question of the Watergate era was:  what did the President know, and when did he know it. Perhaps we ought to be asking the same question of this President; what did he know about Foxconn, Carrier and GM, and when did he know it?  

President Trump has a “tenuous” relationship with the truth.  That’s a nice way of saying that he says whatever he thinks will get him out of whatever problem he’s in at the moment, regardless of the facts.  Yesterday was a clear example:  he stated that the “media” misstated what the President’s intelligence chiefs said to the Senate committee, even though the C-Span 3 broadcast (yes, I watched it all) showed that there were no misstatements.  So when the Trump Administration claims that “ISIS is defeated” or “the Russians aren’t obeying a treaty” or “North Korea isn’t building weapons” or “Iran is breaking the agreement” or “caravans are coming to the border” or “no collusion:” we really have no idea what is true.

After almost four years of the Trump campaign and Presidency, the public has become numb to falsehood.  After four years of “alternative facts” and “the truth isn’t true” we have come to expect lies.  There is no longer outrage, or surprise.  It has infected our entire political system, and made many voters, if not most, cynics. 

This is the true legacy of the Trump era.  Whatever happens in the next two years, impeachment or not, re-election or not, the American people will be forced to answer a simple question:  how long are we willing to be conned?

What IS the Plan?

February 15^this the next deadline.  If the Congress and the President cannot agree on a funding plan, including Border Security, then the government may be closed once again, and 800000 employees will face financial crisis.  Wednesday, a committee of House and Senate members from both parties got together to begin the process of negotiations.

It would seem obvious that all sides want to avoid another disastrous closing.  But, in the current era where “normal” rules no longer matter, nothing is obvious anymore.  As the committee gathered, with both leadership teams choosing members who aren’t “bomb-throwers,” the President issued his first salvo in a tweet:

 If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!

The “bomb thrower” was sitting in the White House.  While Republicans and Democrats in Congress will likely reach a negotiated agreement, there is no guarantee that any deal will pass Presidential muster without “Wall.”  Both sides recognize this, but the problem is: what is “wall?”

“Wall” started as a “great” concrete barrier stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. But that concept, created as a memory device for the then-candidate to remember to talk about immigration, has faded away.  While the President wants the legacy, a monument to the strength of his will, perhaps the Trump Wall like the Hoover Dam;  to the opposition it has become a symbol of racism, of complete disregard for the environment, and of the folly of using simplistic solutions to complex issues.  A concrete barrier is totally unacceptable.

What will “wall” be? The discussions have grown into a complicated mix of fence, barriers, actual walls, electronic monitoring, and more border personnel on the ground.  This modern border security has been given a name to use as a fig leaf for the President:  “Smart Wall.”   In addition, funding to alleviate the Trump created humanitarian crisis would be included. Left out are the larger immigration issues that seem intractable:  a solution for the Dreamers, for those temporarily admitted to the US, and an overall immigration strategy.

This solution seems inevitable, with both sides moving towards agreement.  But that may not be the Trump strategy.  The President has consistently shown his desire to govern alone, without suggestions or assistance from Congress, or even those who work in his administration.  His recent treatment of his own National Intelligence leaders is just another example of this trend.  

There is a way that the President can avoid a shutdown, and have a better chance of building the “Great Wall of Trump.”  Rather than use the legislative process, the normal means of determining policy and law in the United States, the President could simply declare a National Emergency, and try to subvert Congressional powers to determine funding.  The advantages for him are clear:  he can declare a public “victory” (whether an Emergency declaration would hold up in court is an open question) then declare that there is no need to shutdown the government.  He would attempt to gain powers that have never been claimed by a US President outside of wartime.

He would also “flip the script” from the ongoing Mueller investigation, at a time that the Special Counsel is likely to bring the most damning indictments to those closest to the President, and Congressional investigations into his actions are gearing up. 

Oddly enough, the President declaring an emergency is as much a problem for the Republicans in Congress as Democrats.  To the Democrats it would be seen as a probably unconstitutional move to be contested in court, and another rallying cry to the Democratic base.  To Republicans, the declaration would establish a dangerous precedent.  Should the next President be a Democrat, what would stop her or him from taking similar action for REAL national emergencies:  global warming (not the neutered “climate change”) or mass shootings, or health care.  

While I was writing this essay, the President has put out six tweets, four dealing with the need for his “wall” to stop “murderers and drugs.”  He continues to undermine the Congressional negotiations almost before they begin.  It may seem like he is floundering; trying to negotiate from weakness.  But it is just as likely that this IS the plan:  a plan to gain control of the message, and of authoritarian power.

Billionaire

Musical Selection – Millionaire by Chris Stapleton

There is an arrogance that comes with being a “billionaire.”  There has to be; they’ve been successful at the game that everyone has to play, the game of making a living.  They are clearly the winners:  political folks like Mike Bloomberg and Howard Schultz, but also the gentle Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.  Some like Gates, Zuckerberg and Musk, found a way to “build a better mousetrap;” they used their genius to ride their creations to wealth.  Others, like Buffet and Bloomberg; were better than others at manipulating the financial system, building their own wealth as reward for creating wealth for others.

It’s an arrogance that comes from not having to worry about any kind of basic needs.  To just go through a million dollars a month, it requires spending $33,000 a day.  And that’s only twelve million a year, only a 1.2% of a billion.  To say that someone with that kind of financial capacity is “in touch” with the cost of health care, mortgages, retirement or the price of bread at Krogers, is hard to imagine.  

Howard Schultz made his money in Starbucks.  He has a great “rags to riches” story, and says “he understands” the American people. But of course, he understands not what the American people need, but what he sees from the high altitude of his billions in wealth.  He claims to see “the big picture” that “average” Americans can’t possibly understand. He thinks we need “serious people” to sit around the table to solve American problems.  That doesn’t seem to include average Americans, because he does not feel the reality of living in an America where the disparity of wealth is so great, that one percent of the population controls forty percent of the wealth. 

There is also arrogance grown from the immensity of their financial success.  From their achievement comes the attitude that they can do anything, including running the country.  President Trump is simply the most unvarnished example of this, whether he is a real billionaire or not.  And there is, among almost all of them, a dedication to the system that providing them with success, a no-holds-bar belief in unbridled capitalism.  It worked for them, so it should work for everyone.

It doesn’t.

I’m not a socialist, or a communist; but I do believe that our nation has an obligation to those whose labor creates our wealth, as well as to those who own it.  And more than that, I do not believe that there is a quid-pro-quo; an economic bargain saying you labor and maybe you will get what you need. We as a nation should be better than that:  food, shelter, education, healthcare; all should be inherent entitlements of being in America, and not gained as a reward for labors performed.

Regardless of the excesses of the past two years, the United States still has the potential for being the greatest example of a nation in world history.  We have the greatest amount of wealth available to benefit our people, and we already have near the highest standard of living.  What the United States needs to do is recognize the obligation we have to ALL of the people in our country.  This is not a matter of scarcity of wealth, it is a matter of wealth distribution.  And as soon as that term comes out, redistributing wealth, the hue and cry against socialism (or communism) rises, particular from those with the biggest megaphone:  the most wealthy.  Well of course they don’t want their income redistributed, they have the most to lose.

Don’t say it can’t be done, or that it would make us a SOCIALIST COUNTRY.  Two years ago, when the Trump era began, I wrote an essay about some Americans longing for the simplicity of the 1950’s, the era of the television show “Leave it to Beaver” (Trump World and the Beaver.)  In that “black and white” time the tax rates on the most wealthy was over 90% (the tax charged on income OVER $200,000, the first $200,000 was taxed at lower rates.) Today the equivalent income is over $2 million, and the tax rate is 37%.  We were doing it in the era of Elvis and Eisenhower; why not now?

Billionaires don’t represent the interests or experiences of most Americans.  And success in creating wealth doesn’t equate to success in running government (we should know that now more than ever.)   What billionaires do have is access to our communication system:  they can buy the biggest megaphones to deliver their message.  It doesn’t make them qualified to govern, nor does their experience help them understand the concerns of most Americans.  They are good at making money, so, as the saying goes;

“Do what you know best; if you’re a runner, run, if you’re a bell, ring.”

Ignaz Bernstein – Jewish Folklorist and Wealthy Philanthropist (1836-1909)

Papering Over Our Differences

America polarized, compromise unattainable:  while it sounds familiar, it is not the upcoming election of 2020, but of 1860.  The United States was in the ultimate Constitutional crisis, unable to resolve the issues.  While revisionist historians now claim it was about the rights of states, or the abuse of tariff policy to the detriment of the South, or some other lame excuse; the men of the time knew exactly what the issue was:  human bondage.  As early 20^thcentury reformer and essayist John Jay Chapman said:

“There was never a moment, when the slavery issue was not a sleeping serpent. That issue lay coiled up under the table during the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.”

The chasm in American thought was never clearer than in the election of 1860. The Republican Party, though abolitionists were members, was not the Party of Abolition, but of Containment. Slavery could remain where it was, but it would not be allowed to spread on into the new territories of the United States. 

The Democratic Party was as divided as the nation.  The Party nominated Stephen Douglas of Illinois as their candidate, avowing the policy of popular sovereignty, giving each new territory the “right” to vote slave or free.  But that wasn’t enough for the Southern Democrats, who walked out of the convention to nominate their own choice, John Breckenridge of Kentucky, dedicated to allowing slavery in every part of the nation.   The split doomed both sides to electoral disaster.

A fourth political party, the Constitutional-Union, formed with the explicit message in their one-paragraph party platform:  they would recognize no other principle but the Constitution of the United States.  They specifically took no stand on the issue of slavery.

The election results were as fragmented as the nation:  

Candidate                    Party                Elect Votes      Pop Vote         Percent

Abraham Lincoln         Republican      180                  1866452          40%

John Breckenridge      S. Democrat     72                    847953          18%

Stephen Douglas         Democrat          12                  1380202          29%

John Bell                     Cons. Union     39                    590901          13%

Lincoln won the electoral votes, but was governing with only 40% of the popular votes (note: Bill Clinton had 43% in 1992.)  Secession and Civil War were in the air.  

William Seward of New York was the pre-convention leader of the Republican Party.  Lincoln, the “rube” from the plains of Illinois, demonstrated the skills of a Chicago lawyer in out-maneuvering Seward for the nomination, and Seward became Lincoln’s Secretary of State in the “team of rivals.”  He was desperate to find a way out of War.  His proposal: invoke the Monroe Doctrine and declare war on Spain and France for their incursions into Central and South America, uniting the nation against a foreign enemy instead of fighting a civil war.  We could be “ All Americans” against an imperial foe.  But the battle lines were already drawn, soon states began to secede and the cannons were firing at Fort Sumter.

Flash forward to this past Sunday.  Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press,was clearly searching for positives in President Trump’s awful, very bad week: the shutdown ending on Speaker Pelosi’s terms and the Roger Stone indictment.  Hewitt pointed out that the Trump Administration was intervening in the Venezuelan government crisis, where the socialist-dictator incumbent, Nicolas Maduro, stole the Presidential election.  Juan Guaido, the President of the National Assembly, claimed the Presidency, and the United States and several European countries backed his move. Russia and China are backing Maduro, and a full-scale international crisis is developing.

Hewitt praised the US intervention, using it as proof that the Trump Administration wasn’t following the Russian line on policy.  But then he went even further, hoping that American involvement in Venezuela might serve to unify the nation, overcoming our internal political differences.

I don’t think Hewitt was calling for a foreign war to paper over our polarization, but he might have been.  In this “Wag the Dog” scenario (after the 1990’s movie of a President who distracted from personal scandal by literally creating a war in the Balkans) the US would fight for Venezuelan democracy, along with our European allies.  The socialist opponent, would be supported by Cuba and indirectly Russia and China. It would harken back to the Cold War anti-communist days, with a simple enemy for Americans to focus on.

 And it would have the added benefit of blurring the lines between dictators like Maduro (and Chavez before him) and Democratic Socialists in the United States like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Should Trump survive to run in 2020, he could further weaponize the division through simplistic Twitter statements. 

It was all  “Sunday Morning Talk.”  Then Monday, National Security Advisor John Bolton appeared at the surprise press conference, announcing additional sanctions against Maduro’s regime.  The sanctions weren’t surprising; what was chilling was the note scribbled on the legal pad Bolton was holding:  “5000 troops to Columbia.”

The Trump Administration has already announced the ominous phrase, “all options are on the table.”  It must be tempting for them; to change the subject from Mueller and “Wall;” to reach for possible “national unification” in war.  Russia, China:  the Monroe Doctrine (and the Roosevelt Corollary) all could be applied.  

I hope democracy wins out in Venezuela.  I hope the United States uses all its diplomatic skills to make that occur. But Venezuela is not Granada, the island nation President Reagan invaded in four days in 1983.  It is a nation-state with a long history of controversy and disruption; and a situation where American troops could be mired for decades.  Military intervention there will not solve their problem, and it will not solve ours either.  It will not paper over our differences, but simply make them worse.

Running Out the Clock

It seems like some kind of “madman” strategy.  Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani goes on multiple Sunday morning news shows, changing the narrative of the Moscow Trump Tower story.  It went from nothing, to a deal no one cared about that Michael Cohen was “playing” with, to a deal they were involved with until spring of 2016, to something the Trump staff worked on until the election.  Giuliani “accidentally” talked about tapes, and seemed to “give away” secrets of the Trump defense.

He sounded at times confused, occasionally deranged, and often unprofessional.  It leaves observers with two choices:  either Giuliani is incompetent and should be immediately fired, or he has a strategy that is so obscure that even the “experts” can’t follow it.  The prosecutor of the mob, the mayor of 9-11, has either lost has skills, or…we’re not so sure what.

One of the great fears of the Trump White House was Democratic control of the House of Representatives. With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, the President is faced with two years of investigation from multiple committees and their chairmen:  Schiff’s Intelligence, Water’s Financial Services, Cumming’s Oversight, and ultimately, Nadler’s Judiciary.

Chairman Schiff particularly wants to get started; after the Intelligence Committees’ debacle under Republican Chairman Nunes, acting as a defensive wall for the Trump organization. Schiff wants to make things “right.” But Republican Minority Leader McCarthy has found another way to impede the investigation; he has failed to appoint Republican members to the committee.  By preventing Republican participation the Committee is unable to reach a quorum of members, and cannot conduct any business.  The stall is “in.”

As we approached Christmas of 2018, there was a clear “deal” to be made for the Southern Border.  The current theory is that the far-right media, led by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, nixed a deal to keep the government open (I wrote an essay on it for Christmas – Merry Christmas Rush) and so portions of the government were closed for thirty-four days.  The focus of the media, and the public, was on the impact of the closings: air travel in disarray, law enforcement working without pay, tax returns stalled, food stamps threatened, government workers in food lines.  While the shutdown is temporarily over, the President still threatens its return in three weeks.

It seems like so much confusion and distraction, from Giuliani to Congress to shut downs.  But there is a clear impact of each of these actions:  delay, delay, delay: delay of Congressional action into the Trump Presidency, delay of impeachment.

Perhaps this is the real underlying strategy of the Trump legal team.  This “band of fools” may actually be playing out a strategic long-term game.  Judge from how the electoral calendar is established.  It’s almost February, 2019, the first shots of the 2020 Presidential campaigns have already been fired.  The Republican National Committee has pledged their fealty to the Trump Presidency, and multiple Democrats have already entered the race.  We are on the cusp of the campaigns, the Iowa caucuses are just 371 days away.

Once the Iowa voters straggle through the snow to their meetings, once the counting has begun, the clock will have run on Presidential impeachment.  Congress will not put themselves in the position of competing with voters for the power to choose the President.  This is the ultimate argument of the Trump team, the same argument they made to negate the impact of Trump’s sexual dalliances.  “Let the people decide if it’s important” they said, the results of the election adjudicates the issue.

It makes some sense. Even James Comey, with inside knowledge into what really happened in the 2016 election and no friend of the President, has called for the 2020 election to be the determining factor, not impeachment.  Comey’s theory is that if the President is removed any other way than through the electoral process, it will leave a “rump base” that will forever feel they have been cheated.  Only an election could convince them that it was “fair.”

That will become even truer as the clock ticks closer to November of 2020.  The Presidential strategy may be much simpler than we thought. Delay today, delay tomorrow, delay this week and this month; find a way to stall and keep America distracted.  It doesn’t have to be until November of 2020, it only has to make it for another ten months.  Then the argument will change from what happened to 2016, to letting 2020 determine the outcome.

Democrats in the House are concerned that their actions not be seem as a “rush to judgment.”  They want to make sure the Democrats can be seen a “governing,” not just investigating and attacking.  But each day that President Trump is in office, another action is taken that damages our country and world.  So while it might be easier to “wait for the people to decide,” there is an undetermined cost to be paid.  The “meter is running” on the Trump Presidency:  we will all have to pay the fare for his actions.  

It’s all about time; and the clock’s running now.  

Stone’s Turn in the Barrel

“Trust me, it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel” – Roger Stone tweet, August 21, 2016

Roger Stone, the shadowy first political advisor to Donald Trump, got his wish Friday morning.  He was indicted by the Mueller Grand Jury, and arrested by the FBI.   He now has reached the “pinnacle achievement” of his mentors, the Watergate operatives of the Nixon campaign. The whole nation was watching as he emerged from the courthouse – his arms spread wide in a Nixonian victory gesture.

Stone was there at the beginning of the Trump campaign, organizing the early moves as Trump entered the race.  Soon though, he officially “left”, but continued to work to support Trump, preferring to function outside of the harsh light of publicity shined on the official campaign structure.  

In the summer of 2016, Stone publicly announced that he had contact with the internet sites who had possession of stolen Democratic National Committee emails, Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks.  His August 2016 tweet about Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta (see above) predicted the release of Podesta’s emails that were hacked from the DNC server, emails that proved to be embarrassing to the Chairman when they were revealed in the last two months of the campaign.  While nothing illegal was found, the internal campaign discussions about a series of speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street groups proved to be difficult to explain.

Guccifer 2.0 was determined by US Intelligence to be a Russian source.  Wikileaks, publisher of many of the DNC emails timed to influence events in the campaign, denies they got them from Russians, but US Intelligence sources have determined that Russia was the source.  The political impact of particular email releases was clearly targeted, most notably with the first Podesta email “drop,” on October 7, 2016, thirty minutes after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump discussing sexually imposing himself on women.  

The legal questions for Stone was how he had knowledge of the emails, and whether he communicated with the internet sites as to the timing of their release.  It is known that Stone was in communication with the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, throughout this period. It is alleged that Stone may be the “link” from the Trump campaign to Wikileaks, controlling the timing of the releases.  This conspiracy could extend from the highest levels of the Trump campaign to those in possession of the stolen emails.

  He is currently being charged with “process” charges:  one count of obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.  The Special Counsel has not brought any charges regarding Stone’s actual conduct during the campaign, though those may come later.  Mr. Mueller may be trying to gain cooperation from Stone in the investigation, though Stone has consistently claimed he won’t cooperate. And while the charges may be about violations during the “process” of the investigation, the question continues to haunt the Trump Campaign: if they weren’t doing anything wrong, why have they so consistently lied to investigators?

On December 3, 2018, Stone spoke on ABC news: “There’s no circumstance under which I would testify against the president because I’d have to bear false witness against him. I’d have to make things up. And I’m not going to do that.” The President, already shaken by the cooperation of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, tweeted in response:

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”

Roger Stone began his political career working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President, the Nixon 1972 campaign. Stone was a young member of the “Rat F—kers,” the dirty tricks squad organized as part of the campaign structure. He was the youngest campaign operative called in to testify as part of the Watergate investigation, though he was never charged with any offenses.

Stone was so impacted by his Nixon experiences, that he had a life-sized image of Nixon’s face tatooed on his back.  He continued his political career, working with former Trump campaign chairman and now convicted felon Paul Manafort and legendary Republican political operative Lee Atwater.  Their company was successful, a campaign consultant firm working internationally with whoever had the money to pay, including dictators and despots.

Stone and Manafort broke apart, but Stone continued to be a “go-to” guy for the Republican party for “shady” actions. He was brought in by the 2000 Bush campaign during the Florida recount, and was in part responsible for the “Brooks Brothers Riot” that disrupted the counting process in Miami-Dade County.

Stone has modeled his whole political career after his Nixon campaign mentors, and it seems unlikely that he will cooperate with the Mueller investigation.  However, like his compatriot Manafort, he may find a number of even more serious charges awaiting him should he decide to have the “guts” that President Trump so admires.  Now it’s his “turn in the barrel.”

Let Them Eat Cake

Musical Suggestion –Wolves at the Door– Aaron Burdett

“It’s not fair to you and we all get that, but this is so much bigger than any one person.  It is a little bit of pain, but it’s going to be for the future of our country, and their children and their grandchildren and generations after them will thank them for their sacrifice. Right now, I know it’s hard. I know people have families, they have bills to pay, they have mortgages, they have rents that are due.”– Lara Trump ( wife of Eric, daughter-in-law of the President)

 reporter – “There are reports that there are some federal workers who are going to homeless shelters to get food.” “Well, I know they are but I don’t really quite understand why because … the obligations that they would undertake say borrowing from the bank or credit union are in effect federally guaranteed, so the 30 days of pay which some people will be out ―there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t be able to get a loan against it.” – Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross

It’s an apocryphal story (a literature major way of saying it’s probably not true.)  Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France and married to Louis XVIII during the French Revolution, was supposed to have said it in response to the French “peasants” rioting because there was no bread.  Saying “Let them eat cake” represented a total lack of compassion or understanding; if there wasn’t bread available then there certainly wasn’t cake. The nobility had no sense of what it was like to be a common person, and even though the Queen probably didn’t say the phrase, the attitude it represents certainly came through.  It’s no wonder she lost her head, along with her husband’s, to Dr. Guillotine’s new invention.

So it wasn’t too much of a surprise that the “let them eat cake” moniker was plastered on Lara Trump’s statement (see above) about the government shutdown, with more than 800,000 missing more than a month’s pay. “It is a little bit of pain…” denies the reality of folks being evicted from their homes, forced to use food banks, and choosing between rent and medical care.  Their “children and grandchildren” may be proud in the future, but right now they need food and shelter, something the shutdown is denying. The statement was made with faux noblesse oblige (how ‘bout that French phrase); praising them for their involuntary service as the sacrificial offering on the alter of the “Wall.”

That same attitude exudes from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (see above) who doesn’t understand why the unpaid workers just don’t run down to the bank and “get a loan.”  As a former investment banker (Rothschild and Sons) and bank Vice Chairman (Bank of Cyprus) he should be more aware than most that banks only lend money to people that have money.  The guaranteed way to not get a loan, at least not a pay-day or loan shark loan, is to not have the money to pay for it.  Even with a Federal “guarantee” most banks wouldn’t touch a loan that had no guaranteed collateral, especially with the current crisis that has no clear end.

In his world, banks always loan money.  That’s how he met Donald Trump in the first place, as Trump was running out of money for his New Jersey casinos, it was Ross who reorganized the financial backers to keep Trump in business.  

Ross also is personally “disappointed” that TSA workers are calling in sick, as many can’t afford to fill their gas tanks for the drive to work, or pay for child care as they work for free.  In his world of a $700,000,000 personal valuation, Ross has never faced the “wolves at the door” moment that some of our government workers are facing now.

And of course, there’s the President himself.  In order to claim support, he had his “little talk” with “many people.”  During the second week of the shutdown, the President said: “And many of those people, maybe even most of those people that really have not been and will not be getting their money in at this moment, those people in many cases are the biggest fans of what we are doing.” 

While there are undoubtedly some government workers who support the President’s proposals, it is much more likely that “many of those people” would like the President and Congress to settle the issue without being volunteered as the sacrificial lambs.  

The President, his family, his cabinet; they don’t understand.  They didn’t understand the moral outrage of separating kids at the border, and they don’t understand the moral outrage of impoverishing the government workers they need to operate our country.  It’s not just wealth: Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and both Bushs’ were all raised in wealth.  Yet all of those Presidents still had empathy for the vast number of Americans not born with a silver spoon.  It is a personal flaw in this President, his family, and many of his appointees.  

Soon though, they will have a different kind of “wolves at the door.” Then they can eat their cake, maybe one with a file baked in it.

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

“If you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll ask for a glass of milk”

Children’s book written by Laura Numeroff

It is one of my favorite classic modern movies, “Air Force One”.  Harrison Ford stars as the President of the United States, travelling on Air Force One from (surprise!!) Russia. His plane is infiltrated by terrorists; they take the President hostage to exchange for their imprisoned leader.

Ford struggles against the intruders; fighting them off again and again.  In a whispered satellite phone conversationwith the Vice President of the United States, played by Glenn Close, they talk about negotiating with terrorists:

            Ford – If you give a mouse a cookie

            Close – He’s gonna want a glass of milk.

Spoiler Alert: The terrorist leader is shot in the prison courtyard as his helicopter to safety hovers above.  Ford kills all the terrorists, saves his family and escapes from a crashing Air Force One.  And the heroic music swells!!!

We are in day thirty-two of a partial government shutdown.  Funding for the Departments of Homeland Security, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Justice is stalled.  Employees of those departments are either furloughed or are working without pay. Over 800,000 government workers are affected, and government services such as Food Stamps, tax returns, National Parks and the FBI are impacted.

President Trump has made it clear that he will accept nothing less than $5.7 Billion for building a “wall like barrier” on parts of the Southern Border.  Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have stated that: “…we will give money for border security, but not $1 for the ‘Wall.’”

The United States government is deadlocked.  Proposals from both sides aren’t getting past the discussion stage, or as the news media seems to love to say; “are dead on arrival.”  After two missed paychecks, Federal workers are desperate to feed their families, and concerned that they will be unable to continue their jobs.

The pressure is growing, on both sides, to solve the problem.  The President seems to be immune to public concerns, focused completely on maintaining the support of his base by delivering on his promised “Wall.” Republicans in the Senate are in a quandary:  feeling the pressure from their constituents to resolve the crisis, but also concerned about the almighty Presidential “tweet” destroying their electoral chances in the future.  

And Democrats are feeling pressure as well.  While polling shows they still have a majority of the nation behind them, it is the Democrats who support the “working folks” including the government workers who are feeling the greatest impact.  The whispers are beginning, “…is stopping ‘Wall’ worth the suffering that will get worse?”  Will the public stay with the Dems, or will they finally grow weary of the spectacle of the “world’s greatest democracy” unable to function.  Who will get the blame?

 Should Democrats offer the $5.7 Billion for “Wall” and get whatever they can in terms of DACA, TPA and immigration reform; then claim credit for ending the shutdown?  Or should they hold fast against the wasteful “Wall” and negotiate a better security system?

There is a third position. Some government workers, some most impacted by the shutdown, and some Democratic Congressmen and Senators; are saying that this form of negotiations needs to end.  This is the third government shutdown in the past two years, and while the others were measured in terms of hours, we have been headed for this kind of long-term showdown for a while.

They are saying that “shutdowns” as a negotiating tool must end.  The United States must find a more effective means of resolving differences and determine that closing part or all of the government must stop being an option. They call for Congress to pass a resolution re-opening the government, without answering questions about “Wall,” put it in front of the President, and if he dares to veto it then override his veto.

The warning: it will not stop even if the Democrats back down.  It will come up again, probably on the next budget resolution.  It is time to realize:  if you give Trump a cookie, he’s gonna want a glass of milk.

De-Construction

The government shutdown is moving into its second month.  Over 800,000 Federal government employees are going without pay.  Around half of these workers are actually showing up at work everyday, some even working overtime hours but are note getting a paycheck.  They are trapped:  if they don’t show up, they lose their jobs, if they do show up, they lose an opportunity to work somewhere else and make money for themselves and their family. The shutdown has made them make an impossible choice.

There is a perception among some, that government workers are making “big money” and can afford to take a month off.  There is the further perception that we don’t “need” them to do their work; that a smaller government is a better thing anyway.  And, I’m sure, someone thinks we are saving “taxpayer” money by the shutdown.

The average salary of a TSA agent, the person keeping weapons and bombs off of airplanes, is around $44,000 a year.  That’s less than $4000 a month; and they have already missed a month’s pay.  It’s an unsustainable burden; no wonder the “sick out” rate is more than three times greater than last year.  FBI agents make more, between $70,000 and $140,000; but they are also looking at a month without a salary.  And since this crisis is ostensibly about the border, those who are there, the border patrol agents, also without pay, get $70,000 annually. They are still going to work everyday, without a paycheck, or a wall.

Sure, Congress and the President, unable to agree on anything else, have passed a law granting back-pay for all of the workers, furloughed (not working) or working without pay.  They will be “made whole” when the government re-opens; if they can survive the wait.

Many businesses; banks and utility companies, rental offices and retailers; are floating loans and delaying payments for the Federal workers.  There have been food banks set up, treating this as some kind of natural disaster, a flood, hurricane, or fire.  It’s a nice thing for them to do, but there’s the other image it creates: the government can’t get this done, so American business will come through.

The “Giants:” Amazon, Microsoft and Apple; are taking “corporate responsibility.”  They are recognizing that their presence in communities so inflates the average income, that the cost of living climb out of the range of “normal” people.  In San Francisco the average apartment rents are near $5000, that’s a month not a year. That’s more than the $4000 average in Manhattan.

It’s all well and good that corporations are stepping in, both to “cover” for the government, and to try to rectify their negative impacts on communities.  But there is a greater point to be made here.  The alt-right agenda, led by the shadowy Steve Bannon, would like to see the government shrunk, with reduced regulations, fewer employees, and less impact on average Americans.  This leaves “the field” open to private corporations. While Bannon long ago left the White House, his views are still in control:  look at the reduced environmental regulations, national land protections, and lax pharmaceutical controls to name just a few.

Shutdown parts of the government, and show everyone that they aren’t needed.  Oh wait, we need to file taxes, and control the border, and check passengers are airports.  Well, let’s make them work without pay.  Maybe the TSA agents will quit, then we can find private companies to overpay for the same services.  

Perhaps this shutdown is about “Wall,” or perhaps it’s about the giant ego of the President.  Or, most likely, it’s about a President who stumbled into a huge political crisis with no plan to get out, and now is stuck between reality and his base.  But it may well be part of an alternative agenda.  In one of Bannon’s first interviews when the Trump Administration took control, he talked about “deconstruction” of the government.  Even though Bannon is gone – it’s looking pretty “deconstructed” to me.

Martin Luther King Day

 Musical Choice – Shed a Little Light – James Taylor

It’s Martin Luther King Day, celebrating the 90^thanniversary of his birth.  How far has America come?  Well, it’s Martin Luther King Day:  the concept of celebrating a national holiday for a man who led a movement to alter our society, challenge our existing beliefs, and was harassed by the FBI; that concept would have been unbelievable when I was a child in the 1960’s. 

In 1964 my parents and I visited a friend in a Virginia suburb near Washington, D.C.  I was surprised, the kids had a day off of school in the middle of January. It was Robert E. Lee Day, a state holiday. Today, that’s still a state holiday in Alabama and Mississippi, joined together with Martin Luther King Day. There’s a true contrast in history. 

Just a year before my visit, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (there’s a plaque marking the spot) and gave us his vision for our future in the “I have a Dream” speech.  With full awareness of his position on the stairs of the “temple” of Lincoln, King echoed the Gettysburg Address, telling of the “…five score years…” since the Emancipation Proclamation, and the “hallowed spot” where they now gathered.

King answered a question for white America.  When should black people be satisfied?

We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality; we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities; we cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one; we can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”; we cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro in Mississippi cannot vote, and the Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No! no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”(I Have a Dream Speech – Martin Luther King)

If those are the goals, America still has a ways to go.  Argue with the Black Lives Matters movement if you will, but the problem of police brutality continues.  This week’s sentence of a failed police officer in Chicago, eight years in jail, is six months for every bullet that entered the body of seventeen year-old Laquan McDonald as he walked away.  And as for voting rights, the machinations of Brian Kemp in Georgia to prevent black people from voting in this last election were almost as obvious as the literacy tests of the Jim Crow Era.  

Justice; while the flow may be more than a trickle, it has not become “the mighty stream” that King hoped for.  The election of Barack Obama was a beacon of hope, the election of Donald Trump was a blanket thrown over the beam.

And it was in that same location, the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, that the theatrical drama of America was on review this weekend.  A group of high school boys, brought from Kentucky by their Catholic school to march for the “Right to Life” (or the right to tell others how to live their lives) were waiting for a bus.  A few black men, steeped in their own religious belief and determined to point out the racism that still exists in our nation, challenged them.

The boys reacted like high school boys often will, in defense and with derision, and without any understanding.  A Native American and Veteran, aware of the rising tensions, stepped in between the few black men and the many students, and tried to use his traditional drum and chants to keep the peace.  He was met with obvious disrespect.

It’s a “right of youth” to be ignorant, that’s what schools are supposed to do; educate them.  In the “education business” it’s called a “teachable moment,” that instant when reality creates the opportunity for responsible adults to step in and present the lessons of acceptance of differences; of when it’s time to react, and when it’s time to listen.

So where were the chaperones, the teachers, the administrators of Covington Catholic High School in the state of Kentucky?  They put their students in the line of fire, the placed them in protest in Washington, D.C.   Weren’t they ready for some kind of counter-protests, some response to their presence?  Their “boys” were chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where were the adults? Not at the concession stand, it’s shut down, as are the restrooms under the Memorial.  That’s why no Park Police appeared.  There was nowhere else for the adults to be, but supervising their kids.

So while the sixteen year old smirk under the red Make America Great Again hat may be symbolic of our nation today, in contrast to King’s Dream, it really represents the failure of the adults in his life.  They needed to be there, and they were not.

Kentucky celebrates Martin Luther King Day today.  They moved Confederate Memorial Day, in a state that never joined the Confederacy, to June 9^th this year.  

————————–

And this is where I should end.  But that isn’t what I really believe, that we are a nation that cannot move forward, where adults allow racism and hate to further their own causes.  I don’t even believe that about the Catholic Church.  In that kid’s smirk, and those red hats, I see hate, but I see hope in the man who risked abuse and injury to make peace. Hope is what Martin Luther King, and his “Day” is about.

…And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

Protection Isn’t Protection

In 1975 I was the one of a few freshmen in an upper level political science course at Denison University, “Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century.”  Its short title was “Bombs;”we were learning about the theory and application of nuclear warfare in our lives.  It was exciting, and scary, and we learned a lot about things like “acceptable losses” and “pre-emptive strikes” and the most important “mutual assured destruction, or MAD.”

In our final paper we had to take one aspect of nuclear warfare theory, and expound on its impact on our world.  I chose “deterrence theory,” the basis of all of our nuclear weapons.  It was pretty simple, if one nation uses a nuclear weapon, another nation would respond with a similar attack. Having weapons prevented others from attacking. I thought I wrote a great paper, typed carefully out on my electric typewriter, written on “onion skin” paper so that errors could be erased without having to use “correct-o-type.”  Doesn’t all of that sound like ancient technology now?

I was incredibly disappointed when I got the paper back, with a “B+” emblazoned on the front:  “B+,” that was an “A” paper for sure!  And that’s what the notation on the last page said, it was an “A” paper, but for one small flaw.  The note said – “…when writing a paper on deterrence theory, it is most important to spell ‘detterrence’ (sic) correctly.”   On the title page, on every page and in almost every paragraph, the critical word of the paper was in error.  You’d think I’d never forget that, but still today “spell-checker” is catching me, making det-ter-rence into de-ter-rence.

Deterrence theory made perfect sense in the 20^thCentury world.  Nuclear weapons were held by large nation-states, with lots to lose in a nuclear disaster.   The absolute destruction and millions of dead in the Soviet Union, and the United States and Europe, made the use of nuclear weapons truly horrifying.  The leaders of those nations, even though they did other despicable things, were unwilling to take that last step.  When they got close, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the multiple times that each got false alarms from their warning systems; their view of the abyss of nuclear destruction pushed them to negotiate rather than incinerate.

A decade after I graduated from Denison, US President Ronald Reagan pushed the limits of deterrence theory. He pressed for the development of a space based defense system, satellites that could stop enemy nuclear missiles, either by firing missiles at them, or by laser beams that would heat them beyond tolerance.  The laser beam thing caught on, and the project was nicknamed “Star Wars” after the George Lucas films.  

It seemed like a logical idea, though it turned out not to be scientifically possible at the time.  Build a “shield in space” that would stop a Soviet nuclear launch, destroying the majority of their all-out missile attack in the air.  Research into the project cost the US billions, but it also forced the Soviets to spend as much to keep up.

But to the nuclear theorists “Star Wars” was horrifying.  In their view, the end result of developing a successful “shield in space” had to be a nuclear attack.  The logic was pretty simple:  in a world of mutual assured destruction, the balance of weapons stopped their use. But if one nation would become invulnerable to attack, then the other nation HAD to attack before that invulnerability was in place.  If they didn’t, then the nation with effective space defense would be all-powerful, and the nation without would be at its mercy.  There was no deterrence.

Intentional or not, the attempted development of “Star Wars” forced the Soviet Union to try to keep up. That effort devastated their economy, and helped lead to its collapse.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has left space-based defense alone.  We have developed various defense systems against slower moving “cruise” missiles, the most famous being the Patriot system used against Iraqi missiles during the Persian Gulf War.  We have recently worked at developing a more advanced system to “shoot down” Medium range and Inter-Continental missiles, called the THAAD system (Two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.)   

THAAD is incredibly complex. A missile launch is detected from, say, North Korea.  The detection is made from Alaska, and the anti-missile missile is launched from an island in the Central Pacific (thus the two terminals.)   The anti-missile missile explodes on or near the attacking missile, somewhere high above the earth, stopping the attack.  It’s like a bullet is fired from one gun, and another bullet is aimed, fired, and hits the first bullet, except a whole lot harder and faster.  It works in some tests, but only so far with a single missile attack.

President Trump wants to spend billions more to increase our missile defense.  He also wants to layer space with satellites carrying sensors that can more easily detect missile launches, not just from outlier nations like North Korea or Iran, but also the new “hyper-sonic” low flying cruise-type missiles, with speeds of Mach 5 or more that can defeat all current missile defenses.  The United States, Russia, China, and France are working to develop these.

It all seems to make sense. Protect yourself in order to prevent attack.  But the problem remains the same as it did in the 1980’s; if it becomes clear that only one nation can protect itself, making others vulnerable, then it encourages those near-vulnerable nations to attack before it’s too late.  Even in the “hypersonic” missile field, deterrence is mutual. 

It’s more than rocket science.  It’s also the highest level of policy theory.  The United States may spend billions of dollars on defense, and do nothing more than trigger an attack.  Sometimes, protection isn’t protection at all.