"STAND BACK AND STAND BY"

 Well, the first presidential debate of the twenty twenty election just took place, and while what happened should have been no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to politics for the past four years, it was still a complete national disgrace.  I have never in my life time been more ashamed and embarrassed to be an American; not even during the Iraq war of the George W  Bush presidency.  Other countries must have looked  on in wonder and fear.  How could a country that claimed to be a beacon of democracy elect such a person? It was, to put it simply, the most disgraceful behavior that any president has ever displayed publicly.   Or as commentator Dana Bash put it, it was a "shit show."

Yes, Donald Trump, behind in the polls, came out angry and fuming.  Truly we saw who really was, a bullying, dishonest, egotistical psychopath.  Determined not to let Joe Biden even finish a single thought, Trump interrupted his opponent one hundred and twenty eight times in ninety minutes!  Host moderator Chris Wallace, continually tried to stop him and make him follow the agreed upon rules of the debate to no avail.   It's been stated before but it bears repeating, Trump's behavior in the debates would get him disqualified from a high school debate.  (It's really sad to think that  many children may have watched this and thought that his behavior was acceptable.)  When Biden snapped and told Trump to shut up, and also added that Trump was "the worst president ever", it seemed like a reasonable reaction.  Bullies have to be confronted, and if Biden hadn't fought back, he never would have gotten a word in edgewise.

Amid Trump's usual cacophony of lies, boasts and insults, one chilling moment stood out: while making one of his standard rants about the danger of Intifa (a left wing anti fascist group with few members that Trump has inflated into domestic terrorists) Wallace challenged Trump to condemn violence coming from right wing groups.  At first Trump grudgingly seemed to go along with the idea, but when Biden suggested specifically condemning the Proud Boys, an extremist right wing group with a history of violence, Trump instead blurted out “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,”  adding "Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.”  Not since he claimed that a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville had "wonderful people" in it has our president made a more disgusting statement.  And this may be worse since it carries the threat of  potential violence.

Think I'm overreacting?  Here's this morning's headline about it from the New York Times: "Trump wouldn’t categorically denounce white supremacists. Members of the far-right Proud Boys are celebrating".  While it's open to debate, Trump's words could be seen as an endorsement of the violence of the Proud Boys.  Even worse, by telling them to stand by, it raises the frightening spector of Trump calling on violent extremist groups to help him win the election through voter intimidation at the polls.or some kind of power grab after the election, which, he has repeatedly said, he will only lose if it's stolen from him.  

The implications of all of this are staggering.  I've already mentioned that I've never been more ashamed to be an American, I also have never been more afraid to be one.  The upcoming election could be the first presidential election in our nation's history to result in violence.  And some of that violence may be coming from our president himself, who could turn full fascist, claim that the election was rigged against him, use the military to cement his power and proclaim himself president for life while he's at.  (These are all things he has hinted at and joked about doing in speeches).The fear I felt four years ago when Trump won has only intensified as the election nears.  I hate to say it, but Trump may pull this country apart, or even start some kind of civil war.  The world's most powerful democracy may be in serious trouble.

JOE BIDEN'S GOOD OLD DAYS

 On Sunday September twentieth, two days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden gave a heartfelt declaration to the Republicans in Congress in which he implored them to “Please follow your conscience.  Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Don't go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak."  This was a perfectly reasonable request, especially because that same Senate refused to allow then President Barack Obama to fill  a similar vacancy back in twenty sixteen.  Biden even used the same argument that Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell used back then:  let the voters decide.

We all know how Biden's plea turned out.  President Donald Trump and the Republicans in the Senate moved forward on filling the nomination, without even shrugging at the brazen hypocrisy they were showing in their quest for political power.

Although I don't fault Biden for attempting to appeal to the conscience of the Republican Senators, anyone who follows politics should not have been  surprised at the Republicans completely ignoring his pleas.  When it comes to attaining raw power, the Republican party has no conscience.  That is especially true when it comes to appointing judgeships; McConnell and the rest of the party know full well that the country's growing diversity and progressive younger citizens will mostly reject the aging, almost entirely white Republican party.  Lifetime judicial appointments can slow that tide.

Joe Biden first entered the Senate way back in nineteen seventy two, and in his speeches he often waxes nostalgic about the warmer and more convivial nature of the Senate back then, which often extended even beyond party affiliation.  I think he may be right about this;  it should be remembered that it was the Republican party finally turning on the criminal behavior of Richard Nixon that forced him to resign.  Yes, once upon a time, a political party was  willing to sacrifice their own leader for the good of the country.  Imagine that.

So what happened?  Why has our country become so polarized that there appears that there is nothing that Trump can say or do that would cause his party to turn on him?  Well, there have been several big changes that have occured since the days of Watergate.

First, when Ronald Reagan moved the Republican party rightward, he forged an alliance with Christian fundamentalists who were (and still are) unrepentant in their literal demonization of their political opponents.  And  as those fundamentalists gained more and  more power in the party, they pushed harder and harder against compromising on their core issues.  

And then the late eighties saw the rise of Rush Limbaugh, who with his mixture of insults, bigotry, misogyny and conspiracy theories about the Democrats, helped push the party further to the right and away from any kind of reconciliation with the other side.  As he grew more popular, an entire right media sprung up that aped his hardline rhetoric.  

Another sea change came in nineteen ninety four, when the Republican party retook the House of Representatives for the first time since the nineteen fifties, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich who had a brutal, cut throat approach to politics.  Now it wasn't just people like Limbaugh calling the Democrats "corrupt" or "fascist", it was an elected official, third in line to the President, no less.  Under Gingrich the House would shutdown the government twice and push for then President Bill Clinton's impeachment even as most of the country opposed it.  Although Gingrich's leadership would have mixed results, his take no prisoners style of politics still influences the Republican party to this day.

And with the right wing media (and social network) still screaming while people like Gingrich still run the Republican party, it seems like there will never be a time like the one that Biden entered into back in the seventies.  So while I sorta admire Biden's stated belief that after Trump is gone, the sane members of the Republican party will see how terrible it was to support him and be ready to move forward in a bipartisan way, I also think it's extremely naive.  Trump is just the ultimate extension of the modern Republican party; they won't improve once he's gone.  For proof of that, Biden shouldn't have to look any  further than the bitter way that the party dealt with President Obama for eight years: they gave him nothing and refused to sacrifice an inch.

What I think Biden needs to do if he wins is to ignore the Republicans as much as possible.  If the Democrats emerge from the upcoming election with not only the White House but also but houses of congress, they need to push their advantage as much as they can.  That means that they should pack the Supreme Court with progressive judges, abolish the filibuster in the Senate and grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  If the Republicans can only play hardball, then it's time for the Democrats to respond in kind.  Compromise and bipartisanship are nice ideas, but  these days they are just relics of a bygone time.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG AND THE 2020 ELECTION

 

On September eighteenth, eightyseven year old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feminist icon and Supreme Court Justice, died of cancer.  Like a lot of progressives,  I was a big fan of her not only as a justice, but as a wise and strong person who was one of only a handful of women to attend Harvard Law School in the nineteen fifties.  While her death was far from surprising (she had been in ill health for years), the timing of her passing has sent shockwaves through the already tumultuous upcoming presidential contest,  coming as it did less than two months before election day.  

President Trump immediately pounced on the opportunity to appoint another conservative to the court, giving him three such appointments in the past four years.  And, of course, most of the Republican party has fallen behind him.  Which shows just how cynical and hypocritical the Republican party has become.  Back in February of twenty sixteen, months before the election, with Barack Obama in the last year of his presidency, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama to appoint another justice, blocking the appointment in the Senate and justifying it by saying that it was too close to the election to allow Obama to carry out his constitutional duty and  choose another justice.  It should be understood that this was a completely unprecedented move by McConnell, a shameless power grab against a popular president that McConnell delighted in carrying out.  And now, naturally, he has completely changed his tune, gleefully preparing to affirm another Trump pick less than sixty days before the election.

Another conservative on the court could push it to the right for decades to come.  Abortion rights, gay marriage, voter rights laws, and environmental regulations could all be put on the chopping block.  If it happens, it will be just another way that the Republican  party has managed to shove  through minority rule in this century:  consider that Democratic presidential nominees have won the popular vote in four out of the last five elections, and yet the Republican party has held the White House for twelve of the past twenty years.  That means that if Trump gets another pick, four out of the nine justices will have been chosen by presidents who did not get a majority of the vote.  And it's likely that those justices will make decisions banning gay marriage and abortion rights even as majorities of the American public now support those rights.

So what can the Democrats do?  Well, it's possible that a handful of Republican Senators in close upcoming elections just might refuse to go along with Trump and McConnell and put the brakes on another juridical pick until after the election. Senator Lisa Murkowski has already said she would prefer that, and others may follow.  

But, if that falls through, what can the Democrats do to stop another conservative justice from being appointed?  Not a lot.  After all, expecting the Republican Party to be consistent with their past actions is madness in the era of Trump, a president who often can't be consistent in the same speech!  

There is one other out, and it would be a bold move: if Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, he could pack the Supreme Court.  Although the number of justices has always been held at nine, there is no hard fast rule that says that no president cannot appoint more.  Sure, the Republican Party would froth at the mouth if that happened, but so what?  Remember that McConnell's move against Obama's choice was also unprecedented.  Biden, for his part, has downplayed the idea, but I really think he should consider it.  It's clear that when Biden first got into politics there was a sense of camaraderie between the parties, despite their disagreements.  He needs to realize that those days are over, and that, sadly, both parties have become so diametrically opposed that compromise on major issues is almost impossible.  The only way that a Democratic agenda can be achieved is without Republican help in any way.  And that means that there has to be a progressive majority on the Supreme Court.  The only way forward is to counter hardball politics with hardball politics.

THE WEST COAST IS BURNING

 The images have been stunning.  For days now fires have been ravaging the West coast of the country to devastating effect.  At least three million acres of land have been lost in California alone so far, a new record for a single year.  Oregon and Washington have suffered seriously also, with Portland facing unprecedented damage.  And even places not directly harmed by the fires have suffered seriously unclean air quality conditions, all in the middle of an airborne pandemic.  The most frightening aspect of this may be that this kind of natural disaster may become the new normal, or, as  Philip  B. Duffy, a climate scientist and the president of the Woodwell Climate Research Center, put it,"People are always asking, ‘Is this the new normal?’ I always say no. It’s going to get worse.”

It's a stunning thought that California, the most populous state in the country, the home of Silicon Valley, and other huge economic drivers, is becoming unlivable.  But that may be where we are.  For the past four years, the fire conditions have become more and more damaging.  Part of the reason for this is that an increased population has led to more homes being built closer and closer to the edge of forests.  But nothing contributed more to these fires than the onset of climate change.  The evidence is now impossible to refute, although we know many will try to find a way.

The really frustrating thing is that all of this was predicted decades ago when climate change first starting becoming an issue.  And it wasn't exactly a difficult concept to grasp:  a warmer climate would lead to drier forests with trees more likely to catch fire and burn longer.  And yet these warnings were mostly ignored.

How did we get here?  Well, part of it is that human beings are just better at dealing with a perceived direct threat than a perceived long term one.  Just look at how many people in the world continue to smoke even though the long term health effects of smoking have been known for decades.  Put simply, a lot of people are willing to shrug off something bad that may happen years down the line.

But of course, politics plays a huge role.  Although Richard Nixon may have founded the Environmental Protection Agency, the Republican party became the party that opposed almost any environmental protections when they stood behind Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty even as he said that trees cause pollution.  And things have only gotten worse since then, with George W Bush's administration scrubbing any mentions of climate change out of their own environmental impact reports, to our current president, who once tweeted out "The concept of Global Warming was created  by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non competitive"(!).  

Another crippling factor was when in two thousand and ten, the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case and equated money spent on political campaigns as an expression of free speech.  That  opened the floodgates for corporate money to influence politics.  And no company has had a bigger influence on this issue than the Koch industries, an oil company that has dumped billions of dollars into denying climate change and opposing solar power.  As NPR reported, in twenty sixteen alone they spent eight hundred and eighty nine million dollars in aiding the Republican party.  And their hold on that party is such that now no prominent Republican elected official can admit that climate change is real.  How radical is this Republican denial?  In twenty fifteen Sondre Båtstrand at the University of Bergen in Norway did a comparative study of conservative political parties all around the world, and found that America's Republican party is the only major political party in the entire world that denies climate change outright.  In any other part of the world, their beliefs would be seen as fringe.  Here in the US they are, sadly, part of the mainstream. 

So what can we do?  Well, obviously American needs to vote Republicans out until they are willing to accept the scientific proof that is literally burning in front of them.  But in the short term there appears to be no easy solution, and the terrible environmental devastation that is happening now may be just the beginning. 

AN ODD SORT OF SCANDAL

 

Way back in July of two thousand and fifteen, Donald Trump showed just what kind of political candidate (not to mention person) he was by blurting out in a interview how he really felt about Senator John McCain: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”  At the time, Trump was still running against numerous other Republican for the presidential nomination.  After making that statement, one of those rivals, Chris Christie, called another one, Jeb Bush, and tersely said that "Trump is out".  It was a logical assumption, given not only the offensive and stupid nature of the quote, but also that it came from a man who had never served in  the military, and who famously avoided the draft during the Vietnam war because of a mysterious bone spur.  The quote gets even worse when you consider that it is not only a slam at McCain, it's also an insult to any American soldier that has ever been taken captive.  Such a deep insult towards members of the military from someone who has never served in it would derail any normal candidate's' campaign.  (Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama had said such a thing when he was running against Senator McCain in two thousand and eight).

Sadly, as we all know, Christie was wrong and Trump's cult like stranglehold of a certain segment of the American public would somehow lead him to the White House despite this and numerous other terrible things he said  that should have doomed him in a rational world.  And now another scandal concerning Trump and the military has arrived.  In the Atlantic magazine, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg quoted several anonymous sources as saying that Trump once  referred to visiting the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris by saying “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”   The article also said that he referred to those soldiers who died as "suckers".  The article goes on to mention several other dismissive things about the military Trump is supposed to have said as president.  Trump has, of course, vehemently denied saying these things, although Goldberg's reporting has been partly upheld by others ( including, oddly enough, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News).

To me there is no doubt that Trump said these things, given not only his history of other offensive quotes, but also his general view of the world.  Trump is, put simply, a psychopath that has spent his entire life looking out only for himself.  He sees all other people as lesser beings, and can not even comprehend the idea of risking your own life and limb in the service of your country.  Consider that during the entire length of the coronavirus Trump has never truly shown any sort of sadness or regret, even as the country approaches two hundred thousand deaths.

The media has jumped on Goldberg's article, saying that it may hurt Trump's standing with the military two months before the election.  I must say I'm a little puzzled by this; as president, Trump has violated the emoluments clause, been impeached by the House of Representatives for seeking to extort information from a foreign country, had it revealed that he possibly committed criminal offenses by paying off a porn star and a stripper to avoid them from going public about their alleged affairs with him during the twenty sixteen campaign, tried to dismantle the post office to give himself an electoral advantage,  and has had seven different associates either plead guilty or be found guilty of crimes.  One of them, Roger Stone, after being found guilty of obstruction of justice, lying to congress and witness tampering, (all of which he did to help the president), was pardoned by Trump, in a move that the New York Times pointed out, was far  more openly corrupt than anything Richard Nixon ever did.

Given all of that (and a host of other horrible and corrupt things that Trump has done that I didn't mention), it seems a bit crazy to me that some stupid and thoughtless comments about the military may be the thing that brings him down.  But, if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, then by all means I'll take it.  Anything to bring back some level of order and decency in our country is a good thing.