RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The Conversation We Refuse to Have About War and Our Veterans Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50864"><span class="small">Benjamin Sledge, Medium</span></a>   
Monday, 27 May 2019 11:48

Sledge writes: "Veterans bear the burden of war long after they leave the battlefield. It's time for America to acknowledge it."

Soldiers. (photo: PA)
Soldiers. (photo: PA)


The Conversation We Refuse to Have About War and Our Veterans

By Benjamin Sledge, Medium

27 May 19


Veterans bear the burden of war long after they leave the battlefield. It’s time for America to acknowledge it.
I went to the market
Where all the families shop
I pulled out my Ka-bar
And started to chop
Your left right left right left right kill
Your left right left right you know I will

- Military cadence

ou can shoot her…” the First Sergeant tells me. “Technically”

We’re standing on a rooftop watching black smoke pillars rise from a section of the city where two of my teammates are taking machine gun fire. Below, the small cluster of homes we’ve taken over is taking sporadic fire as well. He hands me his rifle with a high powered scope and says, “See for yourself.”

It’s the six year old girl who gives me flowers.

We call her the Flower Girl. She hangs around our combat outpost because we give her candy and hugs. She gives us flowers in return. What everyone else at the outpost knew (except for me, until that day) was that she also carried weapons for insurgents. Sometimes, in the midst of a firefight, she would carry ammunition across the street to unknown assailants.

According to the rules of engagement, we could shoot her. No one ever did. Not even when the First Sergeant morbidly reassured them on a rooftop in the middle of Iraq.

Other soldiers didn’t end up as lucky.

Sometimes they would find themselves paired off against a woman or teenager intent on killing them. So they’d pull the trigger. One of the sniper teams I worked with recounted an evening where he laid up a pile of people trying to plant an IED. It was a “turkey shoot,” he told me laughing. But then he got quiet and said, “Eventually they sent out a woman and this dumb kid.” I didn’t need to ask what happened. His voice said it all.

I often wonder what would have happened if the Flower Girl pointed a rifle at me, but I’m afraid I already know. The thought didn’t matter anyway. There was enough baggage from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq that coming home was full of uncertainty, anger, and confusion?—?and not, as I had been led to believe, warmth and safety.

***

“People only want to hear the Band of Brothers stories. The ones with guts and gusto! Not the one where you jam a gun in an old woman’s face or shoot a kid.” I pause, then add, “Look around the room for a second…”

Andy surveys the restaurant we’re in for a moment while I lean in with a sardonic half-smile.

“How many people can even relate to what we’ve been through? What would they rather hear about? How Starbucks is giving away free lattes and puppies this week? Or how a soldier feels guilty because he pulled a trigger, lost a friend, or did morally questionable things in war? Hell, I want to hear about the latte giveaway… especially if it’s pumpkin spice.”

This eases the tension and he smiles.

Andy and I feel like we don’t fit in. We met a few years ago at the church where he works, and where I volunteer. Of the thousands of people in the congregation, we are a handful of veterans. The veterans I meet are few and far between, and we typically end up running in the same circles.

Years ago, Andy fought in the siege of Fallujah. We never readjusted to normal life after deployment. Instead, we found ourselves angry, depressed, violent, and drinking a lot. We couldn’t talk to people about war or its cost because, well, how do you talk about morally reprehensible things that leave a bruise on your soul?

The guilt and moral tension many veterans feel is not necessarily post-traumatic stress disorder, but moral injury?—?the emotional shame and psychological damage soldiers incur when we have to do things that violate our sense of right and wrong. Shooting a woman or child. Killing another human. Watching a friend die. Laughing about situations that would normally disgust us.

Because so few in America have served, those who have can no longer relate to their peers, friends, and family. We fear being viewed as monsters, or lauded as heroes when we feel the things we’ve done were morally ambiguous or wrong.

***

The U.S. is currently engaged in the longest running war in the history of the United States. We are entering our 15th year in Afghanistan, and we still station troops in some Iraqi outposts. In World War II, 11.5% of U.S. citizens served in four years. In Vietnam, 4.3% served in 12 years. Since 2001, only 0.86% of our population has served in the Global War on Terror. Yet, during World War II, 10 million men were drafted, and over 2 million men were conscripted during Vietnam. Despite the length of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, there has been no draft, whereas in times past, shorter wars cost us millions of young men. Instead, less than 1% of the population has borne this burden, with repeated tours continually deteriorating our troops’ mental health.


The gap between citizens and soldiers is growing ever wider. During WWII, the entire nation’s focus was on purchasing war bonds and defeating the Nazis. Movie previews and radio shows gave updates on the war effort. Today’s citizens, however, are quickly amused by the latest Kardashian scandal on TV, which gives no reminder of the men and women dying overseas. Because people are more concerned about enjoying their freedoms and going about their day to day lives, veterans can feel like outcasts. As though nothing we did mattered to a country that asked us to go.

This is part of the problem with a soldier’s alienation. People quickly point out that we weren’t forced to join the military and fight in a war. We could have stayed home. The counterpoint is that, because the U.S. has now transitioned to an all-volunteer force, those opposed to war should be thanking their lucky stars that volunteers bear the burden of combat.

Additionally, regardless of whether you’re Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, Liberal, Conservative, Conscientious Objector, or Pacifist, we all sent the soldier overseas. Because we live in a democracy, we vote to put men and women in charge of governing our affairs, and those elected representatives send troops overseas. We may have voted for someone else, but it does not change the fact that we’ve put ourselves under the governance of the United States. When you live in a country, you submit yourself to their governing body and laws?—?even if you don’t vote.

By shirking responsibility, civilians only alienate our soldiers more. The moral quagmire we face on the battlefield continues to dump shame and guilt onto our shoulders while they enjoy the benefits of passing the buck and asking, “Whose fault is it, really?”

***

On March 3, 1986, 11 years after the end of the Vietnam War, Metallica released their critically acclaimed album Master of Puppets. On the album, a song entitled “Disposable Heroes” tells the story of a young man used as cannon fodder in the midst of war, and the terror that enveloped him on the battlefield. Three years later, Metallica released “One,” a song about a soldier who lost all his limbs and waits helplessly for death. The song won a Grammy for Best Metal Performance.

In an odd twist, both songs are amazingly popular among members of the United States military. During my time at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, we had an entire platoon that could practically sing every last lyric to “One.” In Afghanistan and Iraq, these songs were on playlists made to get soldiers amped before missions. We sang songs about dying on behalf of the people or coming home a vegetable. As crazy as that sounds, we sang those songs because they felt true. And they felt true because of the conversation we refuse to have as a country.

As Amy Amidon, a Navy psychologist, stated in an interview regarding moral injury:

Civilians are lucky that we still have a sense of naiveté about what the world is like. The average American means well, but what they need to know is that these [military] men and women are seeing incredible evil, and coming home with that weighing on them and not knowing how to fit back into society.

Most of the time, like the conversation Andy and I had, people only want to hear the heroics. They don’t want to know what the war is costing our sons and daughters in regard to mental health, and this only makes the gap wider. In order for our soldiers to heal, society needs to own up to its part in sending us to war. The citizen at home may not have pulled the trigger, but they asked the soldier to go in their place. Citing a 2004 study, David Wood explains that the “grief over losing a combat buddy was comparable, more than 30 years later, to that of a bereaved spouse whose partner had died in the previous six months.” The soul wounds we experience are much greater. Society needs to come alongside us rather than pointing us to the VA.

***

Historically, many cultures performed purification rites for soldiers returning home from war. These rites purified a broad spectrum of warriors, from the Roman Centurion to the Navajo to the Medieval Knight. Perhaps most fascinating is that soldiers returning home from the Crusades were instructed to observe a period of purification that involved the Christian church and their community. Though the church had sanctioned the Crusades, they viewed taking another life as morally wrong and damaging to their knights’ souls.

Today, churches typically put veterans on stage to praise our heroics or speak of a great battle we’ve overcome while drawing spiritual parallels for their congregation. What they don’t do is talk about the moral weight we bear on their behalf.

Dr. Jonathan Shay, the clinical psychologist who coined the term moral injury, argues that in order for the soldier and society to find healing, we must come together and bear the moral responsibility of what soldiers have done in our name.

Whether you agree or disagree with war, you must remember that these are our fellow brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, flesh and blood. As veterans, we are desperate to reconnect with a world we feel no longer understands us. As a country, we must try and find common ground. We’re not asking you to agree with our actions, but to help us bear the burden of carrying them on behalf of the country you live in. A staggering 22 veterans take their lives every day, and I can guarantee part of that is because of the citizen/soldier divide.

But what if it didn’t have to be this way? What if we could help our men and women in uniform bear the weight of this burden we carry? We should rethink exactly what war costs us and what we’ve asked of those who’ve fought on our behalf. In the end, no one in their right mind wants war. We want peace. And no one wants it more than the soldier. As General Douglas MacArthur eloquently put it:

“The soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: You Think It's Bad Now? Wait for Next Year's Show Trials Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5903"><span class="small">Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Monday, 27 May 2019 10:44

Tomasky writes: "Koestler and Orwell and Kundera described the hall-of-mirrors horror of totalitarian states. Trump's gang is getting away with it in a democracy."

'Welcome, folks, to the first Stalinist show trials in the history of our country.' (photo: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast/Getty Images)
'Welcome, folks, to the first Stalinist show trials in the history of our country.' (photo: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast/Getty Images)


You Think It's Bad Now? Wait for Next Year's Show Trials

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

27 May 19


Koestler and Orwell and Kundera described the hall-of-mirrors horror of totalitarian states. Trump’s gang is getting away with it in a democracy.

’ve been trying to tell people, with varying degrees of success, that next year’s campaign is going to be—by far—the most ruthless and dishonest campaign that any living American has seen. Some people take me seriously. But most say something along the lines that it can hardly get any worse.

Oh yes it can. It can get a lot worse. And if you want to see how, watch this clip of Corey Lewandowski on Fox News Thursday night, via Josh Marshall’s Twitter feed:

Here’s the transcript, although you really have to study his face and eyes and hear his voice to get the full Weimar effect: “They should be fearful, and I’ll tell you why. The person who has gotten a pass on this so far is Joe Biden. Because I believe that the investigation which was launched came from somewhere inside the White House to greenlight Clapper, Comey, and Brennan to start this investigation into Donald Trump for no valid reason. We now know the State Department, we’ve seen the contemporaneous emails that were put into place after Victoria Nuland did a meeting with Christopher Steele, then notified the FBI this person had no credibility. But it continued. Because it came from the highest levels of the government.

“And Joe Biden has not answered what he knew and when he knew it of how this investigation began. And when Attorney General Barr and Mr. Horowitz release that report in approximately a month I think we’re gonna see additional criminal referrals, with McCabe getting another referral, Comey a referral, Strzok and Page, James Baker, possibly Bruce Orr, and other people we haven’t even meant [sic] as household names yet—but criminal referrals. And I think what we’re gonna see, Gregg, is in March or April of next year, Jamey Comey, Andy McCabe, Strzok and Page will be on trial for the crimes they have committed against the Fourth Amendment, against this president, and we can’t wait.”

“Gregg” was Gregg Jarrett, sitting in for Lou Dobbs; he added helpfully as Lewandowski was winding down that John Brennan and James Clapper were due for their time in the barrel as well.

You can’t ask for more than that. Lewandowski laid out the whole strategy. First, pin the Steele dossier on Biden. Did Lewandowski have even a feather’s weight of evidence before going on national television to suggest that the man who happens to be leading Donald Trump in almost every poll right now was the brains behind the Steele Dossier? If he did, he didn’t produce it. “Because I believe…” “Joe Biden has not answered…”

Because he believes based on what? And of course Joe Biden has not answered. He’s not answered because no one has asked, because what in blazes would Biden have had to do with the Steele dossier? Hillary Clinton didn’t start paying for Steele’s work until April 2016, by which time the nomination was basically hers and Biden was understood to be heading off to the retirement village.

For years, the Steele dossier has done the work of allowing the right to accuse Clinton of secretly working with the Russians to destroy Trump. But now she’s old news, finally, so they’re just going to sub in Biden. And as long as they do it on Fox, they will not be challenged, as indeed Lewandowski was not Thursday night. And the rest of the media will note soberly that there’s no evidence that Biden had any connection etc. etc., but by that time, the liars will have won: They’ll win every time “Biden” and “Steele dossier” are mentioned in the same sentence on television.

But the second part of the rant was even more chilling. The plan here is to wait for the report from the Justice Department inspector general (that’s Horowitz) to hit next month, pry whatever passages they can out of that report to go on Pravda TV, and stitch together the appearance of a vast, deep state conspiracy to take Trump down.

Then wait again, this time for Attorney General Bill Barr to do his part. Trump’s announcement Thursday that Barr would be in charge of releasing the intel on the Trump campaign probe is a staggering development, something we’ve never seen the likes of. Barr, who already demonstrated he’ll cherry pick evidence on Trump’s behalf, can pluck out whatever evidence he wants and leave buried whatever evidence he wants to leave buried.

It’s almost beyond comprehension. Read this tweet from Evan McMullin, the former GOP Hill staffer and presidential candidate:

And this one:

But with everything filtered through a state television network and no Republicans in Congress willing to utter a syllable of protest, there will be no accountability.

And then, next spring (what a coincidence, election year!), Barr’s Justice Department can bring indictments against James Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page for—well, they’ll come up with something. And maybe John Brennan and James Clapper too.

Welcome, folks, to the first Stalinist show trials in the history of our country.

Justice has been miscarried in this country in a hundred different ways a thousand different times, usually with poor people, black people, or political radicals getting the short end of the stick. That’s not defensible, but it’s old hat, and it happens everywhere, not just in America.

What we have not seen in America, not even during the McCarthy era, is an orchestrated effort of this sort with the goal, if Lewandowski is to be believed, and I don’t see why he shouldn’t be, of sending political opponents to jail.

This is not Stalin’s Russia. They may not be able to pull it off. They may get an unlucky draw on the judge. A jury of Peter Strzok’s peers may determine he did nothing wrong.

But it won’t be for lack of trying. And if all goes to plan, the trials will stretch into the summer, into the fall, close to November. You can’t miss the point of that.

So take this seriously. On Friday, Trump accused Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page of “treason.” For investigating a presidential campaign. Treason is aiding an enemy during wartime. And is punishable by death. Trump used the word specifically to signal to his attack dogs that anything is fair game.

So yes, next year’s campaign will be a nightmare beyond the imagination of any novelist who has yet tried to capture and describe totalitarian, hall-of-mirrors horror, from Koestler to Orwell to Kundera or anyone else. They were all describing how a regime gets away with it in a totalitarian state. But these people will be getting away with it in a democracy.

This is the weekend we honor the men and women who’ve laid down their lives to keep that democracy breathing. Today, it is in serious danger of being suffocated. What would we say today to the men who stormed Omaha Beach; if they could speak to us and wanted to be reassured that the sacrifice they knew they were charging into was worth it, how would we tell them that the government they died to protect is now in the hands of at least some people who might well have fought on the other side? Contemplating that is the necessary patriotic gesture of this Memorial Day.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: These Stupid Wars Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 27 May 2019 08:56

Ash writes: "It’s Memorial Day again. Set aside to honor those who serve and sacrifice, often everything, for our country. The day has however more than one meaning."

Poppies standing guard over Flanders Field, Belgium. A contemporary view. (photo: Public domain)
Poppies standing guard over Flanders Field, Belgium. A contemporary view. (photo: Public domain)


These Stupid Wars

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

27 May 19


“As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.”

– Donald Trump, State of the Union Address, February 5, 2019

t’s Memorial Day again. Set aside to honor those who serve and sacrifice, often everything, for our country. The day has however more than one meaning.

Endless, stupid wars, at the risk of redundancy, depend on the endless, stupid logic of endless, stupid wars. It makes good sense to memorialize sacrifice. But to channel that memorialization into an endorsement of more endless, stupid wars is an affront to those who actually have paid the price.

Well before making the remarks above, Donald Trump had invited John Bolton to be his National Security Advisor. An open invitation to the endless, stupid war they now predictably contemplate.

The equation goes something like this: “How many lives is this political objective worth?” The answer is buried at Arlington National Cemetery and in graves large and small, marked and unmarked, everywhere on earth.

Too often the very same people who stand and salute those who have sacrificed, then stand and salute the current endless, stupid war and its consequences, justified or unjustified. Often failing to ask the most obvious and essential question, “Is it justified?”

It’s not enough to stand and salute once a year. A living, breathing memorial everyday is to stand guard over those who serve by asking, why? And demanding a damned good answer.

Another endless, stupid war is now on the table. A fitting memorial to those who paid the price would be to reject it.

On Passing the New Menin Gate

Who will remember, passing through this Gate,
the unheroic dead who fed the guns?
Who shall absolve the foulness of their fate,—
Those doomed, conscripted, unvictorious ones?

Crudely renewed, the Salient holds its own.
Paid are its dim defenders by this pomp;
Paid, with a pile of peace-complacent stone,
The armies who endured that sullen swamp.

Here was the world's worst wound. And here with pride
‘Their name liveth for ever’, the Gateway claims.
Was ever an immolation so belied
as these intolerably nameless names?
Well might the Dead who struggled in the slime
Rise and deride this sepulchre of crime.

– Siegfried Sassoon, 1927



Email This Page


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50860"><span class="small">Monica Hesse, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Monday, 27 May 2019 08:51

Hesse writes: "A particular kind of dystopia has arrived, and we’re beginning to see its fuzzy outlines."

Women dressed as handmaids demonstrate outside the National Capitol in Washington, DC. (photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters)
Women dressed as handmaids demonstrate outside the National Capitol in Washington, DC. (photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters)


Abortion Bans Have Some Women Preparing for the Worst. It Involves ‘Auntie Networks.’

By Monica Hesse, The Washington Post

27 May 19

 

he first breadcrumb leading me to an Auntie Network landed in my path last week, in the form of a Facebook post written by a friend of a friend:

“Hey! People with uteri in other states! If you need to visit your friend Cindy in Chicago, you just PM me and ask for my phone number. I will be so excited to TALK and HANG OUT with you. No judgment. No questions.”

Cindy went on to describe this theoretical Illinois vacation which, as became clear when reading between the lines, was not a vacation at all. It was an offer to reach across state borders, into the jurisdictions that are passing severe reproductive legislation, and help desperate pregnant people acquire abortions.

Some of us with dark imaginations have spent lifetimes imagining theoretical apocalypses. How would we react? Would we be the neighbors who would open our homes, share our bottled water and ramen? What would all of this look like?

A particular kind of dystopia has arrived, and we’re beginning to see its fuzzy outlines. It would involve a whisper network on social media. It would entail announcing “Off to go see Navy Pier!” and then going instead to an abortion clinic. Thousands of women would have to learn — or remember — how this all worked before 1973, when desperate women also had occasion to visit their cousins, old friends, and aunties.

The message I saw was one of hundreds that include the label “Auntie Network” — or “Jane Collective,” a reference to the underground web of support in the pre-Roe era. (Some initially used “New Underground Railroad,” which others quickly called out as tone-deaf and inappropriate.) Many messages were patterned off an early post written by a New Yorker named Lynnie, who has since set up a Facebook group. More than 2,000 would-be volunteers have joined; Lynnie wrote that she’s hearing from more every day. Come and see the Lincoln Memorial, the Aunties offer. Come visit the Mall of America. Have you been to the Finger Lakes recently?

Some invitations are written hyper-cautiously, as if in anticipation of a backlash. Attorneys have raised concerns that the new measures could penalize those who seek abortions across state lines. And so we see some aunties suggest that itineraries could include touristy selfies in front of landmarks. “Proof” that the trip was merely a vacation.

Of course, in many parts of the country, travel and secrecy have always been a part of obtaining an abortion: 90 percent of counties don’t have any abortion providers. Many nonprofit groups already have long-standing systems in place to help abortion-seekers get past the logistical and monetary barriers. Yamani Hernandez, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, worries that the ad hoc creation of Jane collectives could dilute resources from what groups like hers are already doing. “This is a time to build our ranks — not attempt to create new structures,” Hernandez wrote.

What struck me about postings written by Janes and Aunties — and it’s mostly Aunties, though there are a few Uncles, too — is that they don’t read as if they’re attempting to create new structures. They read as if they’re attempting to create new communities. There’s an intimacy to these posts: promises of foldout sofas, herbal tea, fully-stocked DVD collections.

“I’d be happy to mail you a birthday card,” wrote one helper from Iowa. The birthday card could contain birth control, the writer explained, or perhaps a Plan B pill or a pregnancy test. “My home is always welcom[ing],” the post read. “My hand is always there to be held.”

The idea of entrusting your safety and personal information to a random stranger from Iowa seems impractical if not dangerous — again, there are vetted, established abortion rights organizations for this purpose. And relying on Facebook means you’re mostly reaching people in your own network. There’s a limit to the efficacy.

But to me, the Iowa offer communicates more than logistical solutions. The implied message is that this offer of help is not merely transactional. The Iowan on the other side of the exchange does not believe you are a uterine problem to be solved, but rather a human to be cared for.

As legislatures in states like Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi place their concerns solely on the well-being of embryos and fetuses, the posts from Janes and Aunties are reminders that the humans carrying these pregnancies matter as well.

The other thing that struck me, in scrolling through post after post from Janes and Aunties, is how quickly everything coalesced. How quickly women leaped to action in the face of this impending dystopia. Within days, there were new codified hashtags, terms and protocols. Dormant activists creaked back into gear, joining the ones who’d never gone off duty. There was a sense that there was an inevitability to all of this, that rights are always precarious.

A reader emailed earlier this week — one who didn’t know that Auntie Networks were underway, or that the National Network of Abortion Funds had been doing this work for years. She was 82, she said. She was infirm and couldn’t get out much. But she’d been following the news, and wondering whether women seeking abortions were going to need safe houses. And if they were, she wanted to volunteer her own. Women from Georgia or Alabama could come and stay with her.

She was in her 30s when Roe v. Wade came before the Supreme Court. She had never grown complacent, she said. She’d seen it all before, and she’d steeled herself to see it again.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Wrecking Ball Assaults American Government. Luckily, It Is Strongly Built Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 May 2019 13:22

Reich writes: "Americans don't always like what government does but they overwhelmingly support the American system of government. They want to improve it, not destroy it. Enter Donald Trump, who has turned this how-what distinction on its head."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Trump's Wrecking Ball Assaults American Government. Luckily, It Is Strongly Built

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

26 May 19


The president swings wildly but the people will stay true: the way to beat him is to defend the institutions he would smash

mericans have sharply different views about what government should do, whether on abortion, guns, immigration or any number of hot-button issues. But we broadly agree about how government should go about resolving our differences.

This distinction – between what we disagree about and how we settle those disagreements – is crucial. As long as we continue to agree on the how, the processes and institutions of governance, we can accept what is decided even if we’re unhappy about it.

To state it another way, Americans don’t always like what government does but they overwhelmingly support the American system of government. They want to improve it, not destroy it.

Enter Donald Trump, who has turned this how-what distinction on its head. In order to get what he wants, Trump rides roughshod over how we decide. He is the great destroyer.

His directive to his lapdog attorney general, William Barr, to find evidence of “treason” against specific people who investigated him threatens the neutrality of our entire system of justice, as does Barr’s assertion of “no limit” on the president’s authority to direct law enforcement investigations, including those he’s personally interested in.

Trump’s blanket refusal to comply with House subpoenas and investigations flies in the face of how Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch.

Trump’s 2016 campaign aides’ eagerness to get dirt on his opponent from Russia, and Trump’s efforts to suppress evidence about those dealings, undermine how the American electoral system is supposed to run.

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to justify using funds to build his wall that Congress refused to appropriate, obliterates how spending decisions are supposed to be made.

Trump’s angry references to “Obama judges” who rule against him calls into question the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary.

Trump’s hints at violence if he doesn’t get his way – such as his March insinuation that “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough – until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad” – threatens the democratic foundations of our society.

Taken as a whole, these attacks on our basic agreement about how to resolve our disagreements constitute the most profound challenge to our system of government since Richard Nixon went rogue.

Thankfully, most Americans oppose them. Even with record low unemployment, Trump’s approval ratings remain in the cellar. About 35%, Trump’s hardcore base, continue to stick by him, but independents and even some Republicans are deserting him in droves.

Although impeachment is the appropriate remedy for a president who assaults our system of government, most of the public opposes this move as well. I think that’s because in these especially perilous times, impeachment threatens to pull the system further apart, possibly to the breaking point.

Importantly, the courts are stepping up.

On Monday, Judge Amit Mehta ruled against Trump, saying “lawmakers should get documents they have subpoenaed”.

On Wednesday, Judge Edgardo Ramos refused to block subpoenas from the House financial services and intelligence committees for Trump records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

On Friday, Judge Haywood Gilliam granted a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s use of $1bn from the Department of Defense for building his wall.

These decisions are significant not just because they are victories for House Democrats, but because they confirm that the American system of government is still working, Trump notwithstanding.

He may yet succeed in running out the clock – dragging out appeals through election day. But every court decision that adds legitimacy to the processes and institutions Trump has been attacking makes him look more like the dangerous wrecking ball he is.

Over the past several months I have heard some on the left talk about meeting fire with fire, if and when Democrats regain the White House and Senate.

To counteract Trump’s (and let’s not forget Mitch McConnell’s) malfeasance, they want to alter the system in ways that favor their side – expanding the number of supreme court justices, for example, or eliminating the Senate filibuster, or dividing California into three states, each with its own two senators. And so on.

This would be a mistake. Americans want to preserve our agreement over how to resolve our disagreements, and are witnessing the threat Trump and the Republicans present to it.

The Democratic party should dedicate itself to protecting that agreement. This is the hallmark of a true governing party. Trump and the Republicans, by contrast, are digging themselves ever more deeply into a hole from which they may never emerge.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 Next > End >>

Page 878 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