Day 135 of Nat'l Emergency: Authoritarianism Rules (Unless We Won't Let It)

There’s a burgeoning cottage industry among historians and intellectuals manufacturing theses on why authoritarianism is popping up around the globe, sometimes in bastions of democracy. In some countries autocratic rulers have neutered democratic institutions. 

Yes, Trumpism immediately comes to mind. But the study of the decline of democracy predates The Donald’s assumption of office, though he has worked diligently to install America First leadership of the movement, aided and abetted by members of the Republican Party who have abandoned their historical commitment to constitutional values.

My musings are prompted by an email from a friend who related she had just listened to an interview with Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, describing her most recent book, “Twilight Of Democracy: The Seductive Lure Of Authoritarianism.” 

Here are links to two recent interviews, the first, a seven minute discussion on NPR’s “Morning Edition” 

(https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894074616/anne-applebaums-latest-book-twilight-of-democracy). The second link is to a 35 minute broadcast of NPR’s “Fresh Air.” The link also contains a transcript of the interview (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/869722081).

I am neither an historian nor a certified intellectual, but upon receiving my friend’s email I provided some thoughts on the allure of authoritarian rule:

“From religion to business enterprises to sports teams to orchestras to theater/movie productions to all manner of communal activity we are drawn to and often revere strong leaders, be they popes/rabbis, dynamic CEOs, coaches/managers, flamboyant conductors, visionary directors. 

“Of course, we also willingly follow the authoritative general who provides us with security from our enemies and leadership when we covet what others have. 

“It is thus in all societies. We seem to be hard wired in our DNA to seek out strong leaders. It is only in the last 300 or so years that the concept of popular democratic government has evolved. But it has not taken hold in business, the arts, the military, religion. Those disciplines would be unable to succeed under democratic rules. It would result in bedlam.

“Even in democracies like America, India, Israel, Turkey we see too many citizens revert to the innate desire to follow a strongman.

“Democracy, to work, requires education and the absence of existential fear. Trump is stoking fear. From his campaign four years ago to his dystopian inaugural address to his anti immigration rules to his 2020 campaign that spreads warnings of what may happen if the Dems win to his use of armed services to control protesters Trump trades on fear. 

“Fear is one of humankind’s most basic and motivating emotions. Even some of the most educated succumb to fear and seek comfort in an authoritarian leader.” 

It is not for nothing that our form of government is called the “American experiment.” But just as experiments can go akilter (I am reminded of an unintended high school chemistry explosion when the teacher added water to a beaker of sulfuric acid instead of the other way around), so too can our democracy implode if participants fail to act appropriately.

Asked on “Fresh Air” if she sees similarities of creeping authoritarianism in America with actions past and current overseas, Applebaum replied, “Absolutely. The use of the military, the use of language to incite violence - you know, all these are - you know, these aren’t just random things that Trump is doing; these are known tactics. You know, this is how Chavez took over in Venezuela. You know, this is the kind of language that Erdogan uses in Turkey. This is the kind - these are the tactics that Putin uses in Russia. I mean, these are - you know, it’s not coming out of the blue. These are methods that have been used in the past in other places.

“I mean, Americans like to think of themselves as exceptional. And actually, I believe in many ways, we are. You know, we’re uniquely lucky. We’re uniquely gifted. We’ve been a very fortunate nation. We’ve had - you know, we’ve achieved many wonderful things. But we are not exempt from the lure of authoritarianism. We are not exempt from people trying to create authoritarianism. There is nothing about our democracy that is magic. You know, a person who is determined to destroy it can destroy it, unless people can fight back.”

(Most of you are pandemicly stuck at home with time to spare. If you haven’t already, click on the Fresh Air link I provided above. Listen to the interview or read the transcript. It won’t cheer you up but it should galvanize your support in defense of our fragile democracy.) 

Day 7 of National Emergency: Does a Wartime President Have the Power to Delay Elections?

Our fearless, fearful, fear-mongering draft-dodger leader now embraces a self-proclaimed title of “wartime president.” 

As comically absurd as that moniker sounds, it is true, to the extent that we and the world are at war against the coronavirus. So let’s consider what qualities we might want our president to have.

According to UShistory.org, the website of the Independence Hall Association, some common leadership qualities that good presidents appear to have include: 

*A strong vision for the country’s future

*An ability to put their own times in the perspective of history

*Effective communication skills
*The courage to make unpopular decisions
*Crisis management skills

*Character and integrity

*Wise appointments

*An ability to work with Congress

We want someone with character and integrity who can instill in us trust and confidence. Sadly, from day one of his presidency Trump has spouted falsehoods (let’s call his pre-election humdingers as campaign rhetoric) that undermine any hope we might believe him when it matters. 

Wednesday he promised big news from the Food and Drug Administration. Thursday he said the FDA greenlighted a malaria drug for treatment of COVID-19. But shortly thereafter the head of the FDA had to correct him. The drug had been approved for limited usage and further study as it has severe, sometimes fatal, side effects (https://mol.im/a/8131613).

We’d want a leader who can inspire us with calming, motivating oratory, much like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did during World War II. Or how Obama comforted the nation after several mass shootings. Trump’s communication skills when he isn’t riffing on his standard rally speech are pathetic. He has a hard time reading prepared text, which in itself is anything but inspirational. At the beginning of his presidency Trump made a big to-do about installing Churchill’s bust in the Oval Office. Inspiration is not transferable from a slab or marble. All the more reason to be disappointed by his failure to express compassion for those ill or now unemployed. He is heartless.   

In a crisis we want a leader who recognizes his or her limitations, who can acknowledge his/her imperfections, who can accept the advice of experts, be they generals, scientists or doctors. Trump rated his pandemic response performance a “10,” rejecting his earlier dismissal of the coronavirus as anything more troublesome than the flu. He has repeatedly undercut expert advice. Here are several comments he made about the viral outbreak over the last several months:

“There’s nothing to worry about”

“It’s a Democratic Hoax”

“It'll be over by April”

“It’s a pandemic”

“I take no responsibility”

“I always knew it was a pandemic”

“This snuck up on us” (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-coronavirus-snuck-up-on-us_n_5e731e27c5b6eab779424d52)

Hail Caesar: Of all the deaths to be lamented from the pandemic, the most tragic may well be to our democratic republic.

I do not mean to be histrionic. But Trump may as president be able to postpone or cancel next November’s election as part of his emergency powers.

I, along with other commentators, have long opined that Trump would not go lightly from the Oval Office if he loses the election. It doesn’t take a genius to reason out his possible move to negate the election if his polling numbers plummet and he and his hard-core advisors believe he has no way of winning November 3.

The COVID-19 disaster provides the “perfect” shield for a power-grabbing play. Though The New York Times last week said it would be near impossible to postpone the election (https://nyti.ms/2U6p3n5 ), it might easily pass constitutional review given the composition of the Supreme Court.

In the midst of wars and economic depressions no president has invoked emergency powers to deny the American people the right choose their leader every four years. But no president has been like Trump. He has upended norms both domestically and internationally. Moreover, he has cowed the Republican Party into such deep submission that it is doubtful any but a handful of elected GOP officials would object to his postponing an election that might very well cost them control of the Senate and with that future federal court nominations. A sign of their anxiety was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s overture to elderly Republican federal judges to retire so Trump would have the chance to fill their seats with conservative judges. 

Around the world we have seen juntas and strongmen dissolve duly elected governments, proclaiming they did so in the interests of national security and even of democracy, couching their treachery with a vague promise of conducting elections when the emergency has passed. Of course they define when that time arrived, if ever.

Trump has acted like a banana republic president. He has teased about serving beyond the constitutionally mandated two terms. A national emergency declaration abolishing the November election would enable his dream to become a reality.     

The rise of an American autocrat would not occur in a vacuum. Trump has witnessed, envied and even lauded Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India’s Narendra Damodardas Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, The Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.

He feels more comfortable with foreign strongmen than with any of his recent predecessors who valued America’s leadership and moral standing throughout the world.

How ironic that an acknowledged germaphobe might achieve his ultimate coronation because of a pandemic. 

Impeachment Charges, Biden Lets Loose and Historic Facts

Here’s an example of what one of my graduate school journalism professors called a “nothing new” headline:

“House Impeaches Trump.”

Here’s another example:

“Senate Acquits Trump.”

It doesn’t take a genius to know as sure as the first headline will be realized before Christmas, the second will follow in short order, possibly before the end of January.

Unless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has an epiphany and switches his allegiance from the autocratic orangeman in the White House to the U.S. Constitution there is scant expectation Trump will face any penalty greater than history’s assessment of his guilt. 

However, in the debate over what charges the House of Representatives should level against the nasty-man-in-chief, there is an important bit of politics that must be played out. Should Trump be charged merely with abusing the power of his office for personal and political gain through an attempted bribery of the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden in return for arranging a White House meeting and unfreezing Congressionally approved military aid, or should the House lay out a laundry list of offenses including obstruction of justice? 

Those in favor of the former argue it would be a more focused indictment, easier for the public to wrap its mind around. That argument, however, presumes the possibility of a conviction. 

Ha! It will never happen (not “would never happen” which implies “maybe;” under McConnell it is a certainty the Senate will not convict).

The Democratically controlled House, therefore, should engage Republican hands by throwing the kitchen sink at Trump, forcing GOP senators to go on the record to condone each and every behavior that is injurious to American interests and constitutional norms. Make each senator run on his or her compliance with actions they would never tolerate if a Democratic president undertook them. 

A Biden Bite: A show of raw emotion was just what Joe Biden needed to spark his candidacy. But I would suggest the former vice president should not have called an Iowa farmer a “damn liar” during a campaign stop Thursday for regurgitating Trump and Fox News charges that he sold access to the Obama presidency and helped his son Hunter obtain a lucrative job with an energy company in Ukraine, a position for which he had no experience.

Instead of directly insulting the 83-year-old retired farmer, Biden should have countered thusly: “You’re repeating falsehoods, lies, that were created by Russia and Vladimir Putin and promulgated by his corrupt ‘useful idiot’ in the White House and his unscrupulous supporters in the House and Senate. You’re repeating a false narrative which is undermining our democracy.”

Biden took a more in-your-face response. It displayed fire in the belly that has been lacking and, if he is fortunate enough to secure the Democratic Party nomination, will be required if he is to successfully confront Trump.

Historic Facts: Just when you thought the public could not get any crazier, here are two stories that boggle the mind:

A majority of Republicans believe Trump is a greater president than Abraham Lincoln (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7742883/Majority-Republicans-think-Donald-Trump-better-president-Abraham-Lincoln.html). I’ll let you parse that one without further reflection on my part.

Here’s the Mideast Problem in Brief: In a speech in November, Riyad Al-Aileh, a Palestinian political science lecturer at Al-Azhar University, said Jews only came to the region “as invaders 70 years ago.” Another Palestinian “intellectual,” Abir Zayyad, an archaeologist and member of Fatah’s Jerusalem branch, asserted “We have no archaeological evidence of the presence of the children of Israel in Palestine in this historical period 3,000 years ago, neither in Jerusalem, nor in all of Palestine.” 

So there you have it—A rejection not only of Jewish heritage in the land of Israel but also, by inference, of the existence of Jesus, his visit to the temple in Jerusalem and his later return to the city, his trial and crucifixion. A rejection of Roman historical records. It makes one wonder how any peace can be achieved when one side is so delusional. 

Are You Proud To Be an American?

A mainstay of Republican rallies for the last three decades or longer has been the Lee Greenwood’s anthem, “God Bless the U.S.A., with its central theme of being “proud to be an American.” Which conjures up the current question, given the last two-plus years, are you proud to be an American? 

Are you proud that our president dangles foreign military aid to a beleaguered country fighting Russian-backed incursions in the hope it will actively work to uncover dirt on his political rivals? 

Are you proud that our president praises autocrats like Turkey’s Erdogen, Russia’s Putin, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammad bin Salman, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un while trashing present and past leaders of allies like Trudeau of Canada, Engel of Germany, May of United Kingdom and Macron of France?

Are you proud that our president encourages his supporters to cry out for the incarceration of his political rivals? 

Are you proud that our president sullies members of Congress who disagree with him?

Are you proud that our president is more concerned with his weather forecasting reputation than the lives of millions coping with the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian?

Are you proud that our president is so fixated on building a wall along our southern border that he has stripped funding for military projects that are needed to educate and train our servicemen and their families?

Are you proud that when our president speaks or tweets it is often impossible to separate fact from fiction? 

Are you proud that our president has turned his back on our country’s historic commitment of being a land of opportunity for the downtrodden from around the globe?

Are you proud that our president rejects science?

Are you proud that Russia interfered with our election without any consequences, that our president believes Vladimir Putin that Russia didn’t spook our election and rejects the findings of our own intelligence community that it did, and that our president now wants to involve Ukraine in his re-election bid in violation of federal law?

Are you proud that our president considers whistleblowers “traitors”?

Are you proud that our president has politicized the Justice Department? 

Are you proud that our president has so kowtowed Republicans that they no longer have allegiance to the Constitution but rather to him because they fear his impact on their election/re-election if they publicly disagree with him?

Are you proud that our president has put together one of the most corrupt and immoral administrations in the history of our nation? 

Lee Greenwood recorded the song in late 1983. I’m not too proud to admit I really enjoyed listening to it, so much so that I obtained a cassette of Greenwood’s album that contained it. But I find it increasingly difficult to square his patriotic gushings with the insults Trump has visited on our republic. 

I’d like to be proud again. 

Be Careful Whom You Trust

Some people are trusting. Perhaps too trusting. 

Take, for example, this recent message on a residential association bulletin board: “We live on XYZ (I redacted the actual street name) and will be travelling during the last two weeks in July and need someone from July 17th through July 29th to come by once a day to feed our cat, take in the mail and water our vegetable garden.”

Hello burglars, or at least those who monitor the Internet for leads on which locations are most vulnerable to easy pickin’. I’ve often wondered why people post pictures of their extended time away from home during their trips. Couldn’t they wait until they returned to make their friends and family envious of their time in the sun or on the slopes? Those postings are open invitations to those with less than socially acceptable behavior to drop by for some extra curricular “play while the cat’s away.” 

In the above cited message, of course, the cat will be home, but it probably is not trained to protect home and hearth. Given today’s Internet-capable ability to hone in on addresses, providing the dates one will be away and the street of one’s home is pretty, oh, let’s just say, it, STUPID!

Oh, one more thing. The person in need of a daily house monitor included their name! Again, STUPID! Why not just leave a key in the front door or, better yet, leave it unlocked?

Am I being paranoid? I don’t think so. What do you think? Are people too trusting for their own good?

Speaking of trusting, Donald Trump’s just completed trip to Japan and Korea, both South and North, if you consider 20 steps inside a corrupt, repressive country a bona fide visit to Kim Jong-Un’s dictatorship, exemplified his foreign policy approach. It is all based on personal appeal. 

George W. Bush thought the same way at first, as when he initially met Vladimir Putin and said he “looked the man in the eye and found him to be straightforward and trustworthy.” Bush said he looked into Putin’s “soul” and believed he could do business with the man, so much so that he trusted him enough to invite him to his ranch. 

Yeah, Putin gave him, America and its allies the “business,” all right. 

Trump believes Putin didn’t interfere in the 2016 election and accepts his word that he will not interfere in the 2020 election. Trump’s security and intelligence chiefs tell him otherwise. He rejects their analyses. 

Trump believes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had nothing to do with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Turkey. Why, because MBS, as he is known, told him so. But U.S. and United Nations intelligence findings say he is responsible. 

Trump trusts autocrats over his own advisors. 

Trump seeks personal relationships with despots, believing, somehow, they are eager, or at least willing, to enhance the position of the United States over their own country’s interests. 

By contrast, when he has to deal with substance, such as the issue of climate change during the just concluded G-20 meeting in Japan, he is incapable of displaying mutual cooperation with our traditional allies (https://beta.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/as-g-20-reaffirms-fight-against-climate-change-trump-again-stands-apart/2019/06/29/d3d96f22-9a68-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?outputType=amp).

Trump is a world class spinmeister. Without achieving any concrete breakthroughs, he has positioned his photo-op meetings with Kim and with China’s president Xi Jinping as building blocks to foreign affairs victories. 

Even his detractors hope he is on the road to success. But wariness abounds that he is being played and that America will wind up no closer to achieving Trump’s objectives of denuclearization of North Korea and a more even-handed trade agreement with China.

Can You Trust The NY Times? The Times is still the gold standard of reporting. But its copyediting/proofreading increasingly leaves something to be desired. As a former editor I read most things with an eye toward what might be wrong (I’m not perfect myself, but at this juncture in my journalism career I am not being paid to get everything right). 

Twice in the last few weeks I spotted the same mistake in two different articles—the printing of “though” instead of “through.” I blame whatever spell check program The Times uses and the laziness of copyeditors/proofreaders to actually read content for clarity. 

A June Op-Ed by Thomas Edsall on meritocracy contained the following sentence: “Much resentment focuses on the way in which the meritocracy is selected, though the education process, and on the winnowing effect of extensive standardized assessments that seek to measure and validate cognitive skills” (https://nyti.ms/2IC9RbK).

Did you catch the mistake? He meant “through the education process.” Hours after I read the piece The Times corrected it before I could send off a note to Edsall.

But a June 2 profile of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi and who The Times called “the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates” still contains the “though/through” mistake: “His military is the Arab world’s most potent, equipped though (should be “through”) its work with the United States to conduct high-tech surveillance and combat operations far beyond its borders” (https://nyti.ms/2EMnuE4).

I know spell check has been a godsend to many a writer. But copyeditors/proofreaders need to be more careful. They are supposed to be the last line of defense against errors. 

Seeing the Future But Not Always the Present

I watched or listened on the radio to 90% of Michael Cohen’s Wednesday appearance before the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The most significant part I missed was Cohen’s closing statement. Here’s how John Dean, White House counsel under Richard Nixon and the man who famously told him that the Watergate coverup represented a “cancer” growing on the presidency, described Cohen’s parting words: 

“He thanked the members, and again accepted responsibility for his bad behavior. He then told the legislators, ‘Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power, and this is why I agreed to appear before you today.’ This was the most troubling—actually, chilling—thing he said in his five hours before the committee.” (https://nyti.ms/2XzehH8)

I couldn’t agree more. But I was not surprised by Cohen’s dire prediction, as back on January 30 I postulated the same possibility, er, probability. Here’s how I put it: 

“But with 2020 looming and his polling numbers down, Trump is now in a position to do real damage to the republic should he lose reelection. He would continue, after all, to be president for more than two months until January 20, 2021, a lame duck in name but not in power to respond to emergencies. 

“It is not a far reach to think Trump would invoke executive powers to declare a rigged election created a national emergency. Consider the border wall contretemps a potential test case before the Supreme Court of his authority to enact executive rule.” (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2019/01/trumps-next-constitutional-crisis.html)

I take no pleasure in being among the first to counsel wariness about our democratic future. But it is reassuring to know others are similarly pre-occupied. I only hope they are preparing plans to insure my forecast does not come true. 

Wannabe-in-Chief: His detractors have likened him to a would-be dictator, what with his cozying up to actual despots like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, taking their word over the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps. 

But now, Donald Trump has added multi-hour oratory to his autocratic repertoire. Appearing at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference,  just hours after flying home from a fruitless summit in Hanoi with the North Korean potentate, Trump emulated authoritarian leaders like Fidel Castro in delivering a two hour-plus highlight reel review of his campaign, presidency and bouts with unsatisfactory staffers and runaway investigators (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/2/18247712/trump-cpac-bizarre-rant).

Sadly, Trump’s performance was not the most troubling part of CPAC. Rather, it was the fawning, sycophantic, hyperbolic approval he received from an audience that in the past cherished American values but now has been hoodwinked by a wannabe absolute monarch. 

My Blindspot: Of course, my vision is not perfect. Case in point—For more than 30 years I had my hair cut at Young & Classy, a salon on Central Avenue in Scarsdale. After Young & Classy closed down more than a year ago my haircutter Rosie moved to a different salon. I followed her there.

A few months ago Gilda accompanied me. While I was getting my hair washed Rosie told Gilda that the spa and massage parlor next to the Young & Classy location was raided by police because it turned out to be a front for a den of illicit sexual activity. Throughout the day men could be seen coming and going from the storefront next door. 

Who knew? Who knew that right next door, while I was getting shorn, other men were getting…pleasured? 

Illegal massage parlors have been in the news a lot lately, since the arrest of Robert Kraft, owner of the seemingly perennial Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, as part of a roundup of patrons. Kraft denies soliciting sexual activity while a customer of Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida. 

Sexual indiscretion of another kind, the extra-marital kind, has engulfed another billionaire, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and the world’s richest human. His affair and breakup of his 25-year marriage have become fodder for tabloid journalists and, to his extent the actions could have an impact on Amazon’s businesses, also for mainstream news outlets (https://nyti.ms/2EIX9qP).

In case you’re wondering, here’s why I have not previously commented on Amazon—unlike many other retailers, I met Jeff Bezos only once or twice. Actually, to say I met him would be a stretch. I was part of a large press and securities analyst pool. Basically, the only takeaway I have from Bezos is the sound of his laugh. It is among the strangest noises one could hear. It is more than a hacking sound. It is loud. It reverberates. There is nothing infectious about it. Were it not for his billions and his obvious brilliance there would be multiple reasons to distance oneself from the sound. 

Trump's Next Constitutional Crisis?

Buried amid all the sordid revelations of backbiting, incompetency and corruption in “Team of Vipers,” Cliff Sims’ first person account of life within the Trump campaign and White House, is the nation’s next and potentially most catastrophic constitutional crisis. 

According to Sims, former director of White House message strategy and a special assistant to the president, as returns were coming in election night 2016 Trump was ready to declare via Twitter the results a fraud if he did not win. 

We were saved from this crisis, Sims relates, by Steve Bannon, of all people, and the failure of Hillary Clinton to win sufficient votes in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Had he lost, Trump would have gone on a Twitter tear, but no amount of tweeting or fulminating in public or in the courts would have ensconced him in the Oval Office.

But with 2020 looming and his polling numbers down, Trump is now in a position to do real damage to the republic should he lose reelection. He would continue, after all, to be president for more than two months until January 20, 2021, a lame duck in name but not in power to respond to emergencies. 

It is not a far reach to think Trump would invoke executive powers to declare a rigged election created a national emergency. Consider the border wall contretemps a potential test case before the Supreme Court of his authority to enact executive rule. 

The orderly transition of authority has been a hallmark of the United States since George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms of office. The Trump presidency, however, has been anything but an affirmation of political norms. 

To be fair, almost all administrations are populated by competing personalities and interests. Abraham Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals,” as portrayed by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, united in their combat to defeat the South. Trump’s cadre of conspirators, on the other hand, seem particularly vile, ineffectual, dumb, vengeful and venal. 

Sims is but the latest to reveal the innerds of a dysfunctional organism. With each expose the question of how long Republicans can abide a Trump presidency becomes more focused. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6642039/Trump-p-ed-ex-aides-tell-book-lifts-lid-White-House-chaos.html

If I am right about Trump’s post-election-emergency-powers-executive-action it would be up to Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to remove him from office, that is, if they are not first removed from their positions by Trump. Then it would be up to the military to enforce the Constitution. Maybe Putin would send private Russian military contractors to protect Trump as has been rumored he has done recently in Venezuela to bolster security for embattled President Nicolas Maduro.

Sounds like a geopolitical thriller novel, doesn’t it?

Supreme Court Aside, Why Do Evangelicals and Republicans Stay Silent on Trump?

Ever the showman Donald Trump is expected to reveal Monday night his next conservative, court-packing nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is his constitutional imperative to select a nominee; it is within his rights and privilege to choose a jurist he believes will decide the law based on the values and principles he espouses. Forget for a moment that Trump waffles on principles and displays no values, especially as they relate to family. 

I don’t agree with them, but I can understand why evangelicals support Trump. He promised them a conservative federal court. He is delivering on that promise, thanks in no small measure to Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist strategy to deny a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. 

Support, however, does not mandate blind, unswerving allegiance. It does not prohibit conscientious objection to policies that are aberrant to their Christian faith. They should not have to twist Scripture inside out to justify abhorrent behavior. 

The Catholic church, after all, is just as dedicated to the abolition of abortions, yet its leadership, all the way up to the pope, has been intensely vocal in criticism of Trump’s behavior towards migrant families. 

So I am puzzled by the silence flowing from an evangelical community that is accustomed to hearing fire and brimstone penalties to anyone who acts contrary to god’s and Jesus’ admonitions.  

Let me reiterate: While I do not condone one-issue voters, I recognize their right to follow their narrow public consciousness. I have too many friends who voted Trump because they perceived his support of Israel stronger than the alternative, reinforced by his shift of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

They remain friends. We try not to talk politics, as I cannot condone their silence, and that of millions who I do not personally know but who profess to be god-fearing, in the wake of Trump’s flagrant abuses and miscalculations. Those millions include elected Republican officials. 

Where is the outcry, the condemnation, or at least an expressed revulsion at a zero-tolerance policy that ripped children from their parents? Should they not be repulsed by the ineptitude of their government not being able to expeditiously reunite families?

Even Democrats acknowledge industry is weighted down by too many regulations. But where is the sense of outrage from Republicans over the revocation of laws that protect our water, land and air quality? 

Do rank and file Republicans, along with Independents and Democrats who voted for Trump, not see that the tax bill provides meager relief to the vast majority of Americans while rewarding the wealthy and corporations with riches beyond their expectations? 

As other countries respond to Trump’s tariffs by targeting products from states he won, why are they silent when their livelihood is at stake? It’s not “America right or wrong” time when it is painfully obvious to all but Trump that winning a tariffs war is not easy.

Do they not see Trump was snookered by the North Koreans, that his boast that we could sleep more easily now because Kim Jong-un agreed to denuclearize was as empty as his claim to educate the gullible and desperate at Trump University? 

And what about our stature in the world? Do they not understand that “America First” runs counter to the principles and leadership embodied by the United States after World War II? That it was that global, communal ethos embodied by NATO and the Marshall Plan that enabled Western European civilization to reconstruct itself after the war’s devastation, that it forged successful economic and political recoveries in Japan and South Korea after two devastating conflicts? 

How do they square Trump’s campaign rhetoric that he is a big builder who will draw up a huge infrastructure investment list with the reality he not only has not initiated a building program but he also has stymied perhaps the most important project, construction of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River critically needed to support the Northeast which represents more than 10% of the nation’s economy?

Despite Trump’s repeated efforts to hamper it, the Affordable Care Act remains popular. How can they justify a disregard for the health needs of millions? Isn’t caring and concern for the sick part of their religious creed? How can they remain silent when the Trump administration, in support of infant formula manufacturers, disregards scientific data that breast milk is better than baby formula, and compounds the heresy by blackmailing other countries to follow its dictates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly? How humiliating that Russia—Russia!—had to save the day for truth and science! (https://nyti.ms/2J0WJuV)

And speaking of Russia, how can evangelicals and ordinary Republicans acquiesce to the bromance Trump has with Vladimir Putin? Democrats are not demanding an invalidation of the 2016 presidential election. They are demanding admission that Russia interfered with it. They are demanding Trump instruct appropriate federal agencies insure it doesn’t happen again. To date Trump has not. 

With all that Trump has accomplished in undermining the values and doctrines of America, Republicans have steadfastly stood behind him. It is foolish to presume they will abandon him in the 2020 election. 

The only way to unseat him will be if enough citizens who failed to vote in 2016 realize their voices can and must be counted to avoid a decades-long descent into despair. 

In 2016, roughly 100 million eligible voters stayed home. 

It Might Be Time for a Communal Sing-along of "Who's Garden Was This?"

In lieu of Donald Trump’s uncertain belief in global warming and commitment to saving the planet, perhaps it would be timely to recall Tom Paxton’s haunting song “Whose Garden Was This,” written for the first Earth Day in 1970. Here’s a copy of the lyrics and a link to his rendition followed by the more well known cover by John Denver:

Whose garden was this? 

It must have been lovely.

Did it have flowers?

I’ve seen pictures of flowers,

And I’d love to have smelled one.

Whose river was this? 

You say it ran freely?

Blue was its color?

I’ve seen blue in some pictures,

And I’d love to have been there.

[Chorus:]

Ah, tell me again I need to know:

The forest had trees, the meadows were green,

The oceans were blue and birds really flew,

Can you swear that was true?

Whose grey sky was this?

Or was it a blue one?

Nights there were breezes?

I’ve heard records of breezes,

And you tell me you’ve felt one?

Whose forest was this?

And why is it empty?

You say there were bird songs?

And squirrels in the branches,

And why is it silent?

[Chorus:]

Whose garden was this? 

It must have been lovely.

Did it have flowers?

I’ve seen pictures of flowers,

And I’d love to have smelled one.

Here’s Paxton’s early recording: http://youtu.be/msKYLHwqvW4

And here’s Denver’s more pulsating version: http://youtu.be/q6N0oY_W9tM

Who knew birds were publicity shy? It is three days since I wrote about my build-it-up-tear-it-down tussle with nest building bird(s) without new construction appearing behind our awning. Who knew all it would take to scare them away was a blog post? 

Or maybe the female got tired of carrying around her eggs and couldn’t wait for me to give up so she found a less troubled spot to start her family. Whatever. I’m just hoping the bird(s) don’t come back this season, though I expect a new attempt next spring.

Writing 101: For those would-be fiction writers, The New York Times a few days ago published a list of writing tips from best selling author John Grisham (https://nyti.ms/2slAS9m).

Not to suggest I know more about writing than Grisham, but does anyone else have a problem receiving writing tips that include a grammatically incorrect sentence—no doubt, unwittingly, but still part of Grisham’s exposition and, sadly, not corrected by The Times. 

Here it is: “There is nothing original about this list. It has all been said before by writers much smarter than me.”

For those wondering, the correct wording should be “smarter than I.”

On the subject of books, does anyone seriously believe Trump read the set of Martin Luther King Jr. writings he gave to Pope Francis during his visit to the Vatican? And does anyone believe he read the Pope’s encyclical on the environment before making his decision on the Paris climate agreement? 

On the subject of correctness, sartorially speaking, can someone, perhaps Melania or Ivanka, please tell The Donald to button his suit jacket when standing up and strutting about. He appears rather boorish, not to mention paunchy, when his jacket is open.

Lest someone think I am picking on him because he’s a Republican, be advised that early during Barack Obama’s presidency I railed against the “shins of the president.” I criticized him for wearing ankle length socks that exposed his shins while sitting with his legs crossed for an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. 

Shortly thereafter the fashion miscue was corrected. Hopefully, the stomach-in-chief will be advised how better to conceal his girth.

Political Correctness: Uh-oh. Trump unleashed a flurry of profanity and unacceptable behavior with his Access Hollywood bus talk about grabbing pussy. In the end he didn’t pay for his vulgarity, but the equivalency police that permits equal time to climate change deniers is not ready to forgive comedians who graphically express their feelings about our grabber-in-chief.

Stephen Colbert escaped censure or worse after he said Trump’s mouth was a holster for a male part of Putin’s anatomy. But Kathy Griffin’s career may not recover from her visually bloody display of a decapitated Trump head.

And now there’s clamor for Bill Maher’s head after he used the “N-word” in a repartee with U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) during his Friday night show Real Time (https://nyti.ms/2szS23b).

Maher apologized the next day for using the “offensive” word, but the fallout, particularly from black activists and conservatives who are eager to stifle his progressive, libertarian anti-Trump voice, is not likely to fade away in the short term.  

I don’t condone his remarks but viewed in context I cannot support calls for his dismissal from HBO. Maher has been among the most supportive of Afro-Americans both in terms of prior comments and inclusion as guests of his show. Nor do I think Sasse has to apologize for not reacting immediately to the N-word. 

After Saturday night’s terrorist attack in London Trump called for more security and the abandonment of political correctness. “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don’t get smart it will only get worse,” he tweeted.

He also tweeted, “We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”,  apparently not understanding that the courts stayed imposition of his travel ban because it infringed on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

As for relaxing PC standards, does that imply Trump is okay with what Colbert, Maher and Griffin said and did? After all, Trump hosted Ted Nugent at the White House despite the entertainer’s vile and suggestively threatening comments about President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

So sad. 

Choosing the Right Title for Trump, Truth Be Told

The children’s ditty that only “sticks and stones can break your bones but words or names can never harm you” has been upended or, in Trumpian terms, disrupted, by the petulant responses The Donald has to any negative commentary on his physique or reign of terror.

Which leads me to the statement, I can’t do it anymore.  I can’t call him president. Or 45, as some scribes have used when pointing out his rank in presidential succession. Nor is he entitled to be called commander-in-chief. He has failed to earn the respect that traditionally accrues to the occupant of the White House.

Rather, aside from using his name, Donald Trump, or just plain Trump, or Trumpster, or the aforementioned The Donald, to the best of my abilities I am no longer going to confer on him the legitimacy of calling him president. Instead, I will refer to him by any number of sobriquets that through words and deeds he has earned the right to be called, including:

Dissembler-in-Chief

Liar-in-Chief

Fabricator-in-Chief

Reneger-in-Chief

Spender-in-Chief

Groper-in-Chief

Golfer-in-Chief

Disrupter-in-Chief

Con-Man-in-Chief

Demeaner-in-Chief

Conflict-of-Interest-in-Chief

Exaggerator-in-Chief

Huckster-in-Chief

Groper-in-Chief

Putin-Puppet-in-Chief

Whiner-in-Chief

Cyberbully-in-Chief

Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief

Peeping-Tom-in-Chief

Voyeur-in-Chief

Truth Squad: It is not enough for the media to point out, after the fact, the fabricator-in-chief’s misrepresentations. Corrections must be done in real time as Peter Alexander of NBC News did during the 77 minute press tirade a little more than a week ago when the dissembler-in-chief falsely stated his Electoral College victory was the biggest since Ronald Reagan.

So the question is, will Democrats arraigned before the huckster-in-chief during a joint session of Congress Tuesday night sit idly as he misleads the American public or will they shout out “Not true” when the Trumpster tramples on the truth?

You may recall Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when President Barack Obama addressed Congress on his then-proposed health care plan. Wilson later apologized for the breach of decorum and was widely criticized by members of both parties.

Democrats especially said they never treated George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan with such disrespect. But these are extraordinary times. We have a president who not only flirts with untruths but does so repeatedly even after the truth has been pointed out. We have a president who demeans other elected officials, war heroes, allies, immigrants, other nations and their citizens,  indeed anyone who does not see the world through his gold-tinted glasses. He has diminished the office of the presidency and the reputation of the United States. Perhaps a taste of how the British prime minister must stand before the House of Commons each week for 30 minutes and respond to the vocal challenges of the opposition party would bring some humility and context to the cyberbully-in-chief. 

Absent that quaint parliamentary custom the American alternative of an after-presidential-address-address is insufficient to convey and correct the damage to the truth a big con man like Trump can foist on a naive and uninformed public.

Will they do it? Will Democratic senators and representatives rise to the status of the vocal opposition even at the risk of being censured by their respective houses of Congress?

Probably not. Pity. They would have forgotten how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell muzzled Senator Elizabeth Warren a few weeks ago as she read a letter by civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. They would have forgotten how McConnell would not allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They would have forgotten how House Republicans over and over again investigated Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi tragedy and her email server, yet have shown no inclination to probe Putin-puppet-in chief’s ties to Russia, his conflicts of interest and Russian interference with our elections. They have forgotten how the Tea Party disrupted their town hall meetings six and seven years ago but now that the GOP is in the majority Republicans are avoiding standing before their constituents at town hall meetings.

The time for staid, polite adherence to the norm is long past. Politics is a blood sport; it is time for Democrats to inflict some pain, even if it means interrupting a speech to set the record straight. The truth demands it.

Republicans at the Barricades? Given the minority status of Democrats in Congress, at least for the next two years, conventional wisdom is that any hope to limit the excesses of the Trump administration rests on the precarious shoulders and patriotism of Republican members of the House and Senate.

Early indications are we are witnessing a hunchbacked GOP that is more than willing to ditch its patriotic duty in exchange for electoral dominance.

There are exceptions, at least in verbal stances, though the real test in voting one’s conscience has been lacking. Only Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska broke ranks and rejected Betsy DeVos as secretary of education despite her obvious lack of qualifications for the position. 

 DeVos, in turn, argued against Attorney General Jeff Sessions who wanted to rescind the Obama rule allowing transgender students to use the school bathroom of their choice. But when confronted with the reneger-in-chief’s backing of Sessions despite his campaign pledge to support the LGBTQ community, DeVos knuckled under rather than take the admirable path and resign. So much for standing up for principle.

Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina have been caustic in their evaluation of Trump actions. But they have yet to cast decisive votes against him. 

The bottom line is the public should not count on Republicans to counter any Trump initiative no matter how shameful it is, how obvious a conflict of interest it may be or how any nominee might lack the experience or credentials to effectively manage the people’s interests. 

Can We Talk? Some people criticize Trump for his inarticulate, incomprehensible English, as if that should automatically disqualify him from office. 

Yes, all my educated friends, listening to Trump is an assault on our ears and brains. But let’s not forget we live in a bubble of intelligence. I’ve met many real estate developers during my publishing career. Some of the most successful could barely string a proper sentence together. 

And let’s also not forget that George W. Bush was equally challenged compared to Bill Clinton’s verbal facility, yet he sat in the Oval Office for eight years. So buckle up. The ride will be bumpy. 

Judge the Totality of Trump, Says Christie

Chris Christie, one of Donald Trump’s earliest and most vocal Republican establishment supporters, finally weighed in on the sex-talk tape heard round the world last Friday. Though I didn’t catch his comments on the Boomer and Carton Show on WFAN sports radio Tuesday morning, a Huffington Post story provided an impression of an obviously pained Christie waffling his way through an uncomfortably thin door of acceptance of an imperfect candidate. 

“I don’t think it’s immaterial, but I don’t think it’s the only way you should make a judgment,” he said, according to HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-leaked-trump-comments-not-immaterial_us_57fce510e4b068ecb5e1a175).

WNYC public radio reported Christie said Trump should be “judged by the totality of his campaign.”

Fair enough. So far this campaign most everything Trump has said confirms and corroborates his despicable behavior, his lack of appropriate temperament for the presidency and his failure to understand basic policies that have been the bulwark of America’s world position: 

He has denigrated Mexicans as well as the entire Muslim world; He has undermined the legitimacy of our democracy, first by questioning the validity of an elected current president through his advocacy of the birther movement, second by questioning the impartiality of a federal judge because of his Mexican heritage, and third by seeding the idea that if he loses the election the results would be tainted by illegal activity; He has lauded dictators such as Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-un; His actions have encouraged fringe groups to expound their bigoted, racist philosophies while only begrudgingly disavowing their support; He has suggested that America’s response to aggression against any of our treaty allies would be based on a financial assessment of their contribution to our military expense; He has suggested nuclear proliferation in Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia; He has affronted prisoners of war for being captured and has criticized servicemen and veterans suffering from post traumatic stress disorder for not being tough enough; He has maligned a Gold Star family; He has verbally abused women who have criticized him including ex-primary candidate Carly Fiorina, newscaster Megyn Kelly and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado; He has intimated that Hillary Clinton cheated on her husband; He has mocked a disabled journalist; He has misrepresented Hillary Clinton’s position on the Second Amendment and not so coyly hinted that gun enthusiasts have a way of stopping her; He has deprived the American public of essential information to properly assess his suitability for office by refusing to release his tax returns, a practice all candidates have adhered to for the last 40 years and to which all federal appointees must comply.   

Moreover, as someone who often reminds people of his tenure as a former U.S. Attorney, Christie should know that Trump advocated war crimes by calling for torture of prisoners, the killing of innocent families of terrorists and the taking of oil resources of another sovereign nation (Iraq). On top of those whoppers, Trump also revealed his autocratic, despotic inner self during Sunday’s debate by saying he would jail his political opponent. And he recently challenged the overturned conviction of the Central Park Five. To Trump, the Central Park Five are guilty regardless of DNA findings to the contrary and a confession by the true assailant in the rape and assault case.  

How Christie, or any intelligent voter or politician, could support Trump after all that (and much more) is beyond my comprehension. 

But wait—Trump tweeted Tuesday morning, “It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to.” 

One can hardly imagine what vile venom will emanate from The Donald in the weeks to come before and most surely after the election.

Buffetted by Buffett: For those who might have missed it, Warren Buffett rebuffed Trump’s claims that he, too, has used the loss carry forward provision of the tax code to reduce his federal tax liability.

Buffett released his 2015 tax file even though he is under audit, as is Trump. 

“I have no problem in releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump — at least he would have no legal problem,” Buffett said in a statement. Trump has claimed he cannot release his returns while under IRS audit. http://usat.ly/2ekn1x6

Just Imagine: Gilda sent me this link of an interesting perspective on the sex-talk tape controversy. Imagine if Barack Obama had said what Trump said … http://nydn.us/2dRJCkl

Movie Metaphor: The movie Denial opens nationwide October 21. Based on the book, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, by Deborah E. Lipstadt, it is the story of a trial to expose the truth of the Holocaust denied by a vicious British anti-Semite. 

Denial might well be a movie metaphor for those who fail to see Trump’s misogyny, racism, bigotry, intolerance and lack of political competence and intelligence. 

Seeking Forgiveness: Yom Kippur begins Tuesday evening, ushering in a day of reflection, a time to seek forgiveness for one’s sins and transgressions, not just to God but even more so to one’s fellow human beings.

I will be in synagogue tonight and tomorrow. Given his history, it is too bad Donald Trump won’t be there as well.

Millennials Must Decide: Live in a Real World or a Bizarro Alternative Reality

The consensus among pundits, commentators and flash polls is that Mike Pence won his vice presidential debate against Tim Kaine Tuesday night. I don’t agree with that analysis as I found Pence to be smug and disingenuous in his strategic decision to ignore Donald Trump’s and his own records and in his outright deceptions that events and statements by them never transpired. 

Yes, Kaine obnoxiously interrupted Pence way too often. And perhaps Kaine seemed too programmed repeating the same mantra of Trump’s vacuousness. But can you blame him? Pence refused to acknowledge reality. It was as if Pence lives in a bizarro world where left is right and right is left, or put another way, where according to bizarro Trump and Pence, Mexicans are upstanding people and should be welcomed with open arms across our borders, where our prisoners of war like John McCain are respected and not degraded because they were captured, where women are not objectified or derided because of their appearance, where nuclear arms are to be contained, not proliferated, where Russian leader Vladimir Putin is rebuked as a despot, where candidates for president willingly disclose their tax returns to demonstrate they have no potential conflicts of interest should they take office, and where Barack Obama is hailed as the groundbreaking first Afro-American president of the United States.

Pence may have won on style points but on substance he came in second in a two-man field.

I watched the debate on CBS. The commentators praised moderator Elaine Quijano. Naturally. She is a CBS colleague. I liked her questions but she lost control of the debate early on and never really recovered her dominion.

I was more distressed by comments from a focus group of some two dozen undecided voters in Ohio. Recently, Ohio was considered Trump territory rather than a battleground state because its population skews older and whiter. The focus group reflected that demographic composition.

Kaine’s aggressive demeanor turned off the undecideds and apparently obscured Pence’s evasiveness. Pence and the focus group exhibited collective amnesia to Trump’s campaign of the last 15 months. Pence dismissed Trump’s verbal assaults as the pronouncements of a non politician unaccustomed to couching rhetoric in more muted, acceptable tones.

Yet, if we were to accept that explanation how would the public know exactly what Trump stands for? Why would we believe anything he has said? After all, his whole campaign has been based on his telling it like it is, that he is not an establishment politician.

The focus group swallowed the deception almost to a man and woman. Fortunately, for those who care, there is ample video and audio to set the record straight (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-said-mike-pence-claimed-did-not-229171).

No matter, we are being told, the election will not be won or lost based on the undertickets’ performances. The election will turn on how millennials vote and whether they actually do cast a ballot. Millennials, born between 1980 and 1995, number about 80 million.

It is hard for me to understand their antipathy toward Hillary Clinton when compared to Trump and the fringe candidates Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Are they not interested in health care, especially the provision that permits many of them to be covered by their parents’ medical plans up to age 26? Trump and Republicans want to dismantle Obamacare, not amend it as Clinton wants to to correct deficiencies in the program.

Are they not interested in no or lower tuition at colleges and universities, as Clinton has advocated? 

Are they not interested in solving the student debt crisis as Clinton has proposed? 

Are they not interested in equal pay for women, a mainstay of Clinton’s candidacy? 

Are they not interested in addressing climate change as Clinton has advanced, compared to the denial of climate change by Trump and Republicans?

Are they not interested in a higher minimum wage as Clinton has recommended versus Trump’s suggestion to do away with a minimum federal wage?

There comes a time when young adults have to grow up. Idealism is a virtue that can be ill-afforded this election. The choice is stark. Permitting Donald Trump to win the presidency would set the country back decades and insure that the remainder of the years millennials live would be stained by discriminatory legislation legalized by a regressive Supreme Court packed by a chief executive who engages in Twitter wars instead of thoughtful, fact-based discourse.