RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Beyond Our Control: America in the Mid-Seventies and 2020 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 03 November 2020 09:17

Engelhardt writes: "In Covid-19 America, with the West Coast still burning, Colorado in historic flames, a record 11 storms hitting the Gulf Coast and elsewhere this hurricane season, and heat of every sort rising everywhere, don't for a second believe that the phrase 'beyond our control' couldn't gain new meaning in the decades to come."

Richard Nixon. (photo: National Archives and Records Administration)
Richard Nixon. (photo: National Archives and Records Administration)


Beyond Our Control: America in the Mid-Seventies and 2020

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

03 November 20

 


In this last TD piece before the election (the next post will appear on Thursday), I wanted to tell those of you who have helped me keep TomDispatch going all these years that I’m always touched when news of your donations arrives in my email inbox. And one thing that invariably strikes me is that the supporters of TD aren’t just from New York (as I am) or Boston or San Francisco, but in a remarkable fashion scattered across the country, red states and blue, big cities and small towns. This country may be splitting in so many ways, but TD still seems to represent, in some strange and moving fashion, America at large. You matter and, of course, please do consider going to our donation page and lending us a further hand.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


t was summer almost half a century ago when I got into that Volkswagen van and began my trip across country with Peter, a photographer friend. I was officially doing so as a reporter for a small San Francisco news service, having been sent out to tap the mood of the nation in a politically fraught moment. The Vietnam War, with all its domestic protests and disturbances, was just ending. North Vietnamese troops would soon enough enter Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital; the president of the United States, Richard Nixon, was then trapped in an escalating scandal called “Watergate.”

And here was the odd thing. I felt trapped, too. In some way, I felt lost. As I put it then (and this should have a familiar ring to it, even if, in 1973, I was only referring to the TV version of the news), “That screen haunted my life. Somehow I wanted to shatter it and discover new, more human reference points, a true center of gravity.” I had the urge to break out of that world of mine and do the all-American thing, the Jack Kerouac thing: go “on the road.”

So Peter and I set out on that famed American road, traveling from campgrounds to fast-food restaurants, carnival midways to Old Faithful, only to find ourselves trapped in what I called “the increasing corporate control not just of people on the job, but on their vacations, in their leisure hours.” I found myself interviewing, and him photographing, what I came to think of as a “population of disoriented nomads” -- mostly lower-middle-class and working-class Americans, confused and angry, “pushed aside,” as I wrote then, by “forces they feel are beyond their control.” We were, it turned out, on someone else’s road entirely.

In Milwaukee, we would be joined by Nancy, who later became my wife, and then would spend weeks following those all-too-unromantic highways (without a Jack Kerouac in sight), interviewing anyone who would talk to us. In the end, that attempt of a 29-year-old to break free from his own life, to figure out “where (or whether) I fit into American society” became my first book, Beyond Our Control: America in the Mid Seventies. In retrospect, that book about our strange journey into a country being reorganized for eternal consumption and the wellbeing of giant corporations became my own -- as I would then call it -- “dream-document excavated from our recent past.”

And yes, even so long ago, it was already a troubled moment in a troubled land. I must admit, though, that I hadn’t looked at Beyond Our Control in years, not until a friend recently found a copy, read it, and emailed, quoting my own ancient text back to me to point out how eerily relevant it still was, how -- in a sense -- Trumpian parts of that 1973 America already were.

He highlighted, in particular, an interview near the end of that book with “Frank Nelson” -- I changed all the names, so who knows now what his real one was -- about which more in a moment. That missive startled me. I had forgotten all those Frank Nelsons and perhaps as well the Tom Engelhardt who interviewed them so long ago.

So, curious about that long-lost self of mine and the world I then inhabited, I picked up that old book and reread it in order to meet the young Tom Engelhardt on the road in another American universe. And how strange that journey back into my own -- and our -- past proved to be.

The Right Wind Sweeping In Off the Plain

So, if you have the patience for a little time travel, return with me to July 1973 and let me tell you about Frank Nelson, whom I met at a trailhead in Yellowstone National Park with his wife and three children. He was “a responsible, likeable family man” with -- regardless of how hard I pressed him -- “no vision of a better future.” A plumber and union shop steward from Cleveland, as well as the chairman of the union bargaining committee in his factory, he proudly told me: “I have really dedicated myself to the labor movement all my life and I believe in it.”

Yet he was already talking back then about the growing “conservative approach” of the trade union movement and the possibility that it would be destroyed, he believed, by “the race issue.” He was clearly both anti-Semitic and racist. (“Being white, I would prefer the continued supremacy of the white race instead of this homogenization that’s coming.”) And while discussing what he felt was a growing American crisis with me, he also told me that “your liberals believe in one world government... and your conservatives” -- which he clearly believed himself to be -- “believe in America first, American domination.”

And remember, this was July 1973, not July 2019. It was Richard Nixon’s America, not Donald Trump’s.

Frank and his wife Helen were open, chatty, and so pleased with the interview experience that she gave me their address and asked me to send them a copy of anything I wrote. In other words, he said nothing he felt was out of the range of propriety. My reaction, on leaving him, was: “For me, this interview seemed like the crescendo towards which the bits and pieces of our trip have been building.”

As I had discovered in those weeks of interviewing, Nelson, like so many others on that vacation loop, was filled to the brim with half-spoken and unspoken fears about a future in which, as I put it then, “the [corporate] pushers will survive, maybe even profit. It’s these people we’ve talked with, the vast mass of middle people who have barely eked out a toehold in the system, who will be cut off at the knees. And, being hooked [on that system], they don’t know what to do.”

Then, thinking about Nelson (and others like him we had met), I added,

“The next step for Frank Nelson, however, may be out of this passivity and into the streets... The motivation, the frustration, the anger is there. Even a new ideology, the ideology of race and nationalism is emerging. All that’s missing is the right wind sweeping in off the plain, a combination of forces at the top of the society willing to mobilize Frank Nelson.

“...Sinking people don’t usually have a trenchant analysis of reality. All they require is the promise that their hard-won sense of status will not go down the drain; and an explanation, any explanation, on which to hang their hopes. American society leaves people so confused and reality so disjointed that almost any formula which pretends to put the pieces together and appeals to what people think of as their self-interest may prove acceptable.”

In those pages, I had already brought up Weimar-era Germany -- the moment, that is, before Hitler rose to power -- and then I added:

“In Germany in the thirties, the formula that worked was anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and a rabid nationalism combined with full employment and a return to domestic stability. If Frank Nelson’s any criterion, the formula may not be that much different here... Nationalism could well be the banner under which the struggle and the inevitable sacrifices will come, and race the bogeyman just as Jews were in Germany. The identifiable (Black) poor are the symbol for Frank Nelson of what he has to lose, what could be ripped out of his hands. And he’ll defend himself against that even if he has to ally himself with ‘the Jews and rich Gentiles’ to do it.

“Frank Nelson and millions of other Americans are set up for the picking, if a group at the top sees profit in the crop.”

Welcome to a More Extreme World

In the age of Donald Trump, the Proud Boys, and the Wolverine Watchmen, much of this should feel strangely familiar. If, however, my reporting was in any way prophetic, I have to admit that I didn’t realize it all these years -- not until my friend wrote me. Still, it should be obvious, in retrospect, that, bizarre as the present moment may seem, it didn’t come out of the blue, not faintly. How could it have?

For that matter, Donald Trump didn’t exactly arrive out of the blue either. As a start, just a couple of months after I got back to San Francisco from that cross-country jaunt of ours, he made his first appearance on the front page of the New York Times. He was 27, two years younger than me, and already the president of the Trump Management Corporation. The headline, shades of the future Donald and the white nationalism that’s accompanied him, was: “Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City.” The Justice Department was then charging his father Fred and him with refusing “to rent or negotiate rentals 'because of race and color'" in the buildings they then owned and managed. And his first words quoted in that paper about those charges were, appropriately enough: “They are absolutely ridiculous... We never have discriminated and we never would.” Of course not! And what hasn’t been increasingly, ridiculously Trumpian about our all-American world ever since?

When you think about it, with that moment in 1973 in mind, Trump himself might be reimagined as some extreme combination of Richard Nixon (a man with his own revealing tapes just like The Donald) and George Wallace. The racist governor of Alabama and a third party candidate the year Nixon slipped by Democrat Hubert Humphrey to first win the White House, Wallace was a man best known for the formulation “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Nixon took the presidency in 1968 and again in 1972 with his own form of racism, the “southern strategy,” first pioneered by Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 (and then called, far more redolently, “Operation Dixie”). In a racially coded and distinctly nationalist fashion, Nixon brought southern whites in the formerly Democratic bastions of the South definitively into the Republican fold. By 1980, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t think twice about launching his own presidential election campaign with a “states' rights” speech (then still a code phrase for segregation) near Philadelphia, Mississippi, just miles from the earthen dam where three murdered civil rights workers had been found buried in 1964. And in the intervening years, the Republican Party, too, has gone south (so to speak) big time and into a form of illiberality that was, even in the Nixon era, striking enough.

By 2016, of course, that southern strategy had become something more like a national strategy in the (pussy-grabbing) hands of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, the corporatization -- I might, then, have thought of it as the fast-foodization -- of the country that Peter, Nancy, and I were traveling across was already well underway. At the same time, a new kind of all-American inequality was, in those years, just beginning to make itself felt. Today, with the first billionaire in the White House and other billionaires, even in the midst of a pandemic, continuing to make an absolute mint while so many Americans suffer, the inequality that left Frank Nelson and his peers so desperately uneasy has never stopped rising to truly staggering levels

Believe me, even if Donald Trump has to leave the Oval Office on January 20, 2021, we’ll still be in his America. And 47 years after my long, strange trip, I think I can guarantee you one thing: if it weren’t for the pandemic that has this country in its grasp and has swept so many of us off any path whatsoever, some young reporter, stir crazy and unhappy, would still be able to head out onto a twenty-first-century "road" and find updated versions of Frank Nelson galore (a surprising number of whom might be well-armed and angry).

Welcome to America! There’s no question that, so long after Peter, Nancy, and I travelled that not-so-open road, our lives and this country are way beyond our control.

Writing about the people I had interviewed then (about whom -- with the single inspirational exception of a museum director I met in Twin Falls, Idaho -- I knew nothing more), I said: “I don’t doubt that they, like me, are still heading reluctantly toward a future that will make the summer of 1973 seem truly unreal and leave us all wondering: Could life ever have really been that way?”

In Covid-19 America, with the West Coast still burning, Colorado in historic flames, a record 11 storms hitting the Gulf Coast and elsewhere this hurricane season, and heat of every sort rising everywhere, don’t for a second believe that the phrase “beyond our control” couldn’t gain new meaning in the decades to come.

Welcome to a more extreme version of the world Frank Nelson and I already inhabited in 1973.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He runs TomDispatch and is a fellow of the Type Media Center. His sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
People Are Creating Self-Care Plans to Make Election Day More Bearable Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56870"><span class="small">Terry Nguyen, Vox</span></a>   
Tuesday, 03 November 2020 09:17

Nguyen writes: "In recent years, the commodification of self-care has stripped the term of much of its medical history and politicized usage."

Anxious about the election? Consider putting together a self-care plan. (photo: Getty Images)
Anxious about the election? Consider putting together a self-care plan. (photo: Getty Images)


People Are Creating Self-Care Plans to Make Election Day More Bearable

By Terry Nguyen, Vox

03 November 20


To cope with election stress, some are limiting social media use, booking therapy appointments, and bingeing Netflix shows.

ith the election rapidly approaching, Taylor Bass knew she had to craft a plan — not a plan for voting, which she will do on November 3, but for taking care of herself in the lead-up to a night where anything could happen.

“I’m in grad school to become a therapist,” said Bass, a 22-year-old master’s student at Washington University in St. Louis. “My education, alongside conversations with other people, motivated me to put together a plan to take care of myself.”

Like most Americans, Bass isn’t sure what to expect, since the presidential election results might not even be called that evening. A podcast she listens to, Therapy for Black Girls, inspired her to consider journaling throughout the high-stress event, in addition to limiting her social media intake and setting personal boundaries for the days and weeks after. Bass’s self-care plan involves a lot of “disengaging” from social media and the news, since the frenzied wall-to-wall coverage tends to overwhelm her.

“I have a class on the Wednesday after, and I’m already planning to leave during the second hour, which was dedicated to discussing the results, since I know I don’t want to do that with 30 other people in the room,” she told me.

Americans have been bombarded for months with reminders to establish a voting plan. But with Election Day around the corner, many who’ve already cast their ballots are shifting their civic priorities toward their own self-care and mental health.

In recent years, the commodification of self-care has stripped the term of much of its medical history and politicized usage, which has been particularly popular among women, queer people, and people of color. The Black feminist writer Audre Lorde wrote in her 1988 book of essays, A Burst of Light, that caring for oneself is not an indulgence but a radical act of self-preservation and political warfare in a hostile world.

Most of this language, however, has been co-opted under capitalism by brands seeking to sell an aesthetic, usually a feminized version of self-care. By now, this pseudo-empowering language is familiar, adopted by the beauty industry to promote skin care products, wellness and lifestyle brands like Goop, and marketers promoting home goods.

Culture writer Aisha Harris argued that the mainstream adoption of self-care coincided with the 2016 presidential election, as stressed Americans sought out coping mechanisms. “[Self-care] was the new chicken soup for the progressive soul,” Harris wrote in Slate. “The week after the election, Americans Googled the term almost twice as often as they ever had in years past.”

In the case of Bass and several other people I spoke with, the primary desire is to simply be prepared for the unknown, regardless of the election’s outcome. Mental health professionals are also urging their clients to develop a plan and set achievable daily goals. While many might see the election as the climax to this tumultuous year, the unofficial slogan of 2020 is, “Anything can happen.”

Cities are also quietly preparing for the potential of unrest, either on Election Day or in the weeks after. Walmart announced it will remove all guns and ammunition displays from its stores in late October, and promptly reversed its decision the next day. Activists and organizers are planning mass demonstrations if Trump wins — or if he loses and contests the election.

The pandemic has flattened the social nature of Election Night, rendering large watch parties and election-themed outings unadvisable. This year, the safest course of action is to stay home in a bubble of personal dread, surrounded by those you trust as the results trickle in.

Eric Crumrine, a queer fiction author based in Boston, is taking two days off work to stay home and relax. His group of friends is doing the same, with some taking the full week off, and their cluster is spending Election Night together.

“I feel like the added anxiety of the pandemic just put people in a space of really trying to be intentional about self-care practices too,” he wrote to me over Twitter. “I remember last election, the day after was such an overwhelming emotional experience that I couldn’t imagine doing that all over again, so I took the day off.”

Many voters say that their clear recollection of the emotional and political turmoil after 2016 kick-started their self-care plans. From her memory of that night, Bass has become warier of who she’ll surround herself with. “I was in college, and it was just very tense being a person of color on a campus that was politically divided,” she told me.

For Brooke Linville, an entrepreneur and writer based in Boise, Idaho, the stakes in 2020 have felt much higher than in past elections, especially with growing concerns over mail-in ballots arriving on time and long lines for in-person early voting. Thanks to social media, there’s added pressure to tune into the state of the race and listen to political commentary, which feels more anxiety-inducing than in years past.

“In my own self-care plan, I realize I have to detach somewhat from the outcome because if I don’t, I’ll be overwhelmed,” Linville told me. “But I also look at the election like a custody battle, and right now, it feels very much like we’re fighting for the custody of our country.”

Linville, who is 38 and a mother to two, is applying coping tactics she has learned through her own custody trial to handle the election. She has scheduled a therapy appointment on November 3, and while she’s planning to watch the results come in, she has set up small tasks in the weeks after the election to keep her preoccupied and present.

“I’ve decided to schedule dental work the day after,” Linville said, laughing. “I want to know that I’m doing things in the actual world that I live in. So I’m planning some at-home projects and acts of kindness that’ll make me feel better. I’ll also probably start decorating for Christmas early.”

Having a self-care plan doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is opting out of the political process, nor is it a substitute for voting or getting involved. For some, it’s a brief but necessary shift in priorities after having expended so much time and energy externally. Linville’s plan won’t apply until November 3, and she spent the weekend before going door-knocking in her community for the first time.

On Twitter and other online spaces, people are sharing recipes, books, and other feel-good activities that will be part of their “self-care kit” to make Election Day slightly more enjoyable. Some are attending virtual meditation sessions, scheduling calls with their loved ones, dutifully avoiding alcohol, indulging in their favorite foods, or binge-watching television shows to distract themselves from current events.

Even news outlets are hopping on the trend: The New York Times has released an “Election Distractor” that features calming stock images and sounds, and the weekly newsletter Girls’ Night In collaborated with the Washington Post to share some self-care tips.

Despite all this strategizing for optimal self-care, mental health professionals say that most people won’t be able to avoid stress and anxiety entirely. “There’s no amount of self-care you can do that’s going to erase the stress that many of us are feeling,” said Melanie Dyer, an Austin-based therapist on the podcast But Have You Considered Therapy. “If you’re Type A or a perfectionist, it can feel like this additional stress that you’re failing at self-care.”

Dyer went on to say that many of her clients are feeling worried, hopeless, and helpless. “It’s going to be stressful and you’re going to feel stressed,” she said. “It doesn’t mean you’re not necessarily taking good care of yourself.”

Coronavirus cases are still at an all-time high in the US, and our pandemic-induced mental strain will soon collide with seasonal depression. Experts told the Washington Post that it’s possible there will be another increase in depressive symptoms among Americans in general as cold weather makes it more difficult to socialize outdoors.

The cumulative stress and trauma most Americans have experienced this past year is still weighing heavy on pretty much everyone. It’s wishful thinking to believe that those anxiety levels will be collectively reduced once the election is over.

But first, Election Day (and possibly the days that follow for votes to get counted). If you’re still on the fence about bingeing that bad Netflix show or testing out that New York Times recipe you bookmarked long ago, go ahead and treat yourself.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Voter Suppression Is a Climate Justice Issue - and 2020 Is the Tipping Point Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56869"><span class="small">Tamara Toles O'Laughlin and Peggy Shepard, Grist</span></a>   
Tuesday, 03 November 2020 09:17

Excerpt: "The very same communities facing environmental injustice and the worst of the climate crisis - Black, Indigenous, and communities of color - are also most likely to face targeted voter suppression."

'The very same communities facing environmental injustice and the worst of the climate crisis are also most likely to face targeted voter suppression.' (photo: Shutterstock/The Atlantic)
'The very same communities facing environmental injustice and the worst of the climate crisis are also most likely to face targeted voter suppression.' (photo: Shutterstock/The Atlantic)


Voter Suppression Is a Climate Justice Issue - and 2020 Is the Tipping Point

By Tamara Toles O'Laughlin and Peggy Shepard, Grist

03 November 20

 

magine gathering everything you can carry to flee your home in the wake of a wildfire and returning to find the charred remnants of your life. Or losing a grandparent to heat stroke because they couldn’t afford an air conditioner during a heat wave. Or having your house flooded and moldy from storm surge, only to learn that you aren’t covered anymore by insurance.

These are some of the impacts of climate change happening all over our country. We have less than 10 years to halt the worst of the climate crisis. With just days to go until the election of our lives and early voting already underway, we must vote to make clear that the climate crisis is the top issue of concern to us.

But the very same communities facing environmental injustice and the worst of the climate crisis — Black, Indigenous, and communities of color — are also most likely to face targeted voter suppression. There are examples aplenty: In “Cancer Alley,” which runs through Texas and Louisiana, Black and brown communities are zoned into neighborhoods chock-full of fossil fuel plants and refineries; in Detroit and Flint, Michigan, Black communities face an ongoing crisis of toxic and polluted water. These communities have also been targeted for forced closure of polling places, modern-day poll tax equivalents, and attempted purging of voter rolls.

Every day, the number of communities impacted by climate disasters increases. Our federal government has rolled back nearly 100 environmental protections over the past four years. Each of these rules and regulations are designed to protect us and our families. And the burden of these rollbacks is felt hardest in low-income communities and communities of color.

As environmental and climate justice advocates, we know that in order to protect communities’ rights to clean air, water, and a healthy climate, we also need to protect our right to have our votes counted this November.

The same tactics employed during the Jim Crow era to suppress Black and brown voters are still in use today, just in more covert ways. State legislatures and election officials are targeting voters with voter ID laws, closed polling places, and voter-roll purges. Intimidation, gerrymandering, and voter ID hurdles are tactics we have come to know all too well. They have been around for years, and are entrenched in systemic racism. Since 2010, we have seen a steady rise in suppression efforts, with 25 states enacting new voter restrictions since 2010.

Climate change itself makes it harder to vote, particularly in frontline and fence-line communities. As we write, Hurricane Zeta is slamming into the mainland United States, pouring heavy rain and sending high winds through Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia, states where gerrymandering and other voter suppression tactics are already rampant. Meanwhile, Northern California is facing its worst fire conditions yet, and a dangerous ice storm is passing from Oklahoma into Texas.

The climate crisis also exacerbates climate gentrification. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, half the population fled the city, but Black residents were substantially less likely to return, ever. The displacement of Black communities resulted in lasting electoral impacts covering the region. Climate change created multiple challenges to voting in New York after Hurricane Sandy and in North Carolina after Hurricane Dorian in 2019. In California, Sonoma County is already taking action to help ensure that those displaced by the wildfires are able to vote. This pattern will only worsen.

Voter suppression efforts from the highest levels make it harder for communities most impacted by the crisis to be heard on issues that devastate our chances of survival and well-being. It’s going to take all of us to address the systemic racism that enables voter suppression tactics.

This year has altered our lives forever. The compound crises of COVID-19, climate disasters, economic violence, and racial injustice have touched all of us. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we must act fast to save what we love: community.

We see hope and courage in the determination of everyday people who are waiting in long lines to vote early, signing up as poll monitors to stop election tampering, and reaching across state lines by phone and internet to make sure everyone’s voice is heard. For our part, 350.org’s Climate Voter Project has called 400,000 voters, recruited 900 phone bankers, and secured 100 poll monitors; WE ACT has been educating and registering voters throughout northern Manhattan, from informative online videos to weekly phone-banking and tabling.

The fate of our fragile democracy rests in our hands. We’ve got mere days to get to the polls and vote for the country and climate we deserve.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Plan Isn't Merely Cheating. It's a Hijacking. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Monday, 02 November 2020 13:48

Pierce writes: "The president*'s campaign is stating, flatly, that it intends to pretend he won re-election because only votes cast on Election Day are legitimate votes."

A Trump rally. (photo: Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images)
A Trump rally. (photo: Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images)


Trump's Plan Isn't Merely Cheating. It's a Hijacking.

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

02 November 20


The president*'s campaign is stating, flatly, that it intends to pretend he won re-election because only votes cast on Election Day are legitimate votes.

out les 'Toobz were abuzz on Sunday with this scooplet from Axios about the nice shiny gaslight that the administration* is polishing up for your Election Night viewing pleasure.

Many prognosticators say that on election night, Trump will likely appear ahead in Pennsylvania — though the state's final outcome could change substantially as mail-in ballots are counted over the following days. Trump's team is preparing to claim baselessly that if that process changes the outcome in Pennsylvania from the picture on election night, then Democrats would have "stolen" the election. Trump's advisers have been laying the groundwork for this strategy for weeks, but this is the first account of Trump explicitly discussing his election night intentions.

On ABC on Sunday, speaking to an obviously distracted George Stephanopoulos, White House adviser and noted family-planning consultant Jason Miller made it clear that the president*'s campaign long ago abandoned any pretense of winning this election on the merits.

“If you speak with many smart Democrats, they believe that Trump will be ahead on election night, probably getting 280 electoral [votes] — somewhere in that range, and then they’re gonna try to steal it back after the election.

Stephanopolous, perhaps lost in the music of the spheres, let this astonishing revelation pass unremarked.

Campaigns never make it quite this plain. Every campaign believes in winning by any means, fair or acceptably foul. But this is so far out of bounds that it's out in Lot C grilling burgers for the tailgate. The president*'s campaign is stating, flatly, that, given the right set of circumstances, it intends to pretend to have won re-election because only votes cast on Election Day are legitimate votes.

The president*'s campaign is saying right out loud what it plans to do. There is brownshirt thuggery in the streets and a remarkable number of local police seem to be on board with vigilante electioneering. On the more polite side of things, the infrastructure of partisan finagling in the courts is in place. (The idea that there even is a hearing in a federal court on Monday that may result in over 100,000 legitimate votes in Houston being thrown out is a towering outrage, especially now that the Texas Supreme Court, which never has been a fraternal organization for democratic socialists, has for the third time declared that it wants no part of this decision.) This part of the operation, of course, was born when Chief Justice John Roberts declared the Day of Jubilee. Since that day in 2013, over 1,000 polling places have been closed in the states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After four years of installing Federalist Society bots at all levels of the federal judiciary, the architecture of a mockery is all in place. It is no wonder the president*'s campaign can announce so plainly that it intends to bumrush the entire process. This isn't "cheating." It's more violent than that. It's a hijacking.

This reality puts a massive responsibility on the shoulders of the legitimate political media. (Fox News, we can assume, will be happy to go along with the program.) They have been warned. The precedents from 2000 are not encouraging, god knows. But that year, at least, a lot of the ratfcking took place offstage. For example, the infamous Florida purge list didn't come to widespread public notice until it already had purged. Some of what went on—the "Brooks Brothers riot," to name one famous episode—was very nearly an improv. This time, the president*'s campaign is sharing the entire playbook in advance, and every bit of it should be factored into the coverage of the election. One side of this election doesn't care for democratic self-government, and is committed to sabotaging it from the streets to the courtrooms. That's the only story that matters.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Only Trump Controls Our H-Bombs? No! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38303"><span class="small">Ronnie Dugger, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 02 November 2020 13:48

Dugger writes: "The cruel and impulsive Donald Trump is the only person, among more than 328 million of us in the United States, who has the deciding control over our H-Bombs and the right to fire them off from probably the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. This is because he is our president."

President Donald Trump during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2019, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2019, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)


Only Trump Controls Our H-Bombs? No!

By Ronnie Dugger, Reader Supported News

02 November 20

 

he cruel and impulsive Donald Trump is the only person, among more than 328 million of us in the United States, who has the deciding control over our H-Bombs and the right to fire them off from probably the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. This is because he is our president.

Last October 18th, the New York Times Editorial Board declared, “Mr. Trump is a man of no integrity.” The editorial stated, “Donald Trump can’t solve the nation’s most pressing problems because he is the nation’s most pressing problem.... He campaigned as a champion of workers, but he has governed on behalf of the wealthy. He promised to raise the federal minimum wage and to invest in infrastructure; he delivered tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich.”

Trump has totally failed to lead the federal response to Covid-19. To increase his chance of re-election, he falsely claims that the plague is over. This shows that he has no empathy. As the Times columnist Paul Krugman says, he just does not care about the 227,000 of his fellow citizens who are already dead from the virus. But he cares about slamming his critics as worthless or disloyal. He has publicly called at least eleven of his critics treasonous. And this year he has actually directed our military and federal officials against our millions of peaceful and constitutional citizen protesters in their demonstrations against systemic racism and police brutality in our country.

It’s like previews of what happens if he’s re-elected. On June 1st, five days after the killing of black George Lloyd by police seen on national TV, he announced in the Rose Garden behind the White House that he had ordered “thousands and thousands” of our world’s most powerful armed forces into military action against masses of active demonstrators then in about 140 of our cities. His explanation was against “looters” and “thugs.” Stopped publicly by our two highest military leaders from carrying through on that, Trump, instead since then, claiming for his re-election he’s law and order, has literally been ordering federal officials obviously under his presidential authority to go with subordinates, armed, into what he politically calls “Democrat-run” cities to literally take over their local police forces against legally activist citizens he condemns. Local officials and even governors telling him they don’t want his men in their cities doesn’t matter. Joe Biden, Trump’s humane and worthy opponent for president, says, “He’s rooting for more violence, and is clear about that.”

Trump’s sister, older than him by eight years, the retired federal judge Marianne Trump, who has known him longer than almost anybody, said to his niece Mary L. Trump, “He has no principles. None. None.” Again and again, Bernie Sanders has called him “a pathological liar.”

Is Trump the person we want to be in sole control of our nuclear weapons for the next four years? Our 1,500 deployed, ready-to-send-out nuclear bombs are likely, along with Russia’s, the most mass-murderous and destructive weapons in human history. Former friends quote Trump asking, “If we have nuclear weapons why don’t we use them?” The man asking this startling question has solitary and total control of the decision to unleash them and destroy our world.

In 1945, President Truman made the decision and gave the order to explode our first nuclear weapons over Japan. Since then it has become policy, but not law, that only our president can decide whether or not to detonate our nuclear weapons. Only our president, acting alone, can give the order to totally destroy with our H-bombs any nation or many of them, however large they are, and kill all – oh, probably except for a few – of their people.

Trump and Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia, the country which has the other of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, are of course the human species’ main nuclear planners now. They seem to be either close acquaintances or friends. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer for ten years, wrote in his book “Disloyal: A Memoir” that Trump told him, “Putin is the richest man in the world by a multiple.... I know it for a fact. Putin is worth more than a trillion dollars.”

In 2016, as many will remember, Trump on international TV asked Russia, if listening (that is, Putin and his technicians), to continue to help him win the American presidency by revealing his opponent’s missing 30,000 or so emails. Formally told by our intelligence authorities that Putin did so help, Trump denies such assistance. The two of them have since conferred on occasion so privately that Trump reportedly even took an accompanier’s notes during one of their secret meetings away from her. Trump said again on U.S. TV that if a foreign official offered him information to help him get elected, that would be OK with him. Now our intelligence people tell us that again Putin and his agents have been secretly helping Trump politically. There could be a lot going on between them that Americans should know about but do not.

Putin brags to the world about Russia’s recently expanded nuclear arsenal, saying that his is the only country in the world that can burn the United States – that is, us – to ashes. Nevertheless, in concord last year both of them withdrew their countries from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Marking the potentially tragic deterioration of the real progress in nuclear disarmament achieved by Mikhail Gorbachev, the first George Bush, and Ronald Reagan, the New START agreement is the only nuclear arms treaty left between us and Russia, and it expires in February. It now limits both countries to no more than 1,500 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. For some time, Putin was open to renewing New START, but Trump would only consider it if China joined. That country, being so far behind them in nuclear weapons, has flatly refused. However, two weeks before the November 3rd election, Putin and Trump agreed to a freeze on their warheads and a one-year delay before the treaty’s scheduled expiration.

President Trump has been interviewed by the U.S. press about nuclear weapons and the public informed about it. He has said a lot about his realization of nuclear weapons’ mass-murdering destructive power and has exclaimed about it dramatically, but then said no more on that. He has emphasized publicly that he does not want anybody, obviously including potential adversaries, to know what his intentions are concerning our nuclear weapons.

As president, Trump has kept our Congress, industry, and military continuing a policy against disarmament of nuclear weapons in a ten-year, more than trillion-dollar “modernization” program. All the nine nuclear nations, the U.S. leading before and after Trump became president, also first ignored and then actively opposed, and still do, the historic treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons adopted in 2017 by 122 nations in the General Assembly of the United Nations. During promotion and debate on it, there was literally almost no journalism about it published in our country. It has just been ratified and becomes international law in about three months. The sponsors of “the ban treaty,” as it’s now called, were an international organization, ICAN, and its 50 or more member organizations. Some of the leaders, while not hopeful about its chances now, postulate that simply outlawing nuclear weapons changes the debate.



Ronnie Dugger is the founding editor of the Texas Observer and received the George Polk lifetime journalism award in 2011. In a 26,000-word article in The New Yorker in 1988, he advanced the proposition that even our presidential elections can be invisibly and unprovably stolen when the votes are counted by computers, which he believes has now been substantially realized. He has written biographies of Presidents Johnson and Reagan, books about Hiroshima and universities, and many articles in the Nation, The Atlantic, Harpers, The New York Times, and other periodicals. A number of his essays focused on Donald Trump have been published by Reader Supported News since 2016, and he has work on nuclear weapons and war under way. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 Next > End >>

Page 303 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN