Bread and Circuses in the Trump Era: Part IV of Treading into Darkness

[“Bread and circuses” was a satirical term coined by Roman poet Juvenal to characterize how Roman rulers kept the masses compliant with the provision of bread (Roman agriculture was very wheat-intensive) and circuses—public entertainment such as chariot races in the Circus Maximus, and bloody spectacles such as gladiatorial combat in the Colosseum.  Here, the target of Juvenal’s scorn was a disengaged, passive citizenry. He also had plenty of scorn for other forms of decadence prevalent in the Rome of his time.]

Republicans grovel, Trump soars, democracy frays, and who cares?

Two days after the Republican-dominated Senate acquitted Donald Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the President’s public approval ratings shot up to 49 percent. Stunning, until you look back on the week that was and saw that two events, external to the impeachment trial, had shaped the public mood: (1) the Superbowl three days before the acquittal, and (2) the Iowa caucuses, the day before the acquittal. The first drew a TV audience of 100 million (almost a third of the country’s population) and $10,000 per ticket.  In the second (the caucuses), some missteps by the organizers delayed the vote count, to the delight of the media who were all over the story like flies on a pile of horse droppings.

The Superbowl buildup during the previous week outshone the impeachment trial in the Senate (viewership less than a tenth of Superbowl-watchers), where the Democratic managers were proving that the President had clearly abused his power, and pointed out that, if he were acquitted, he would continue to do so with a sense of impunity (not just a sense of it, but with actual impunity). Part of the fallout from that week was the precedent set by the Senate refusing to call for witnesses and documents that in the normal run of things would be part of any trial. This pseudo-trial was not in the normal run of things—no run but more like a march toward the edge of a cliff.

All the time the managers were unintentionally proving that the American people care more about football  than the rule of law. If 100 million folks watched the Superbowl, you can be sure that at least 30 million of them were feeling a steady upward climb in football fever in the two weeks between the conference championships and the Big Event.

Continue reading “Bread and Circuses in the Trump Era: Part IV of Treading into Darkness”

Democracy’s Downward Slide and Totalitarianism’s Upward March – Treading into Darkness, Part I

Recession of democracy

On the day I began writing this (December 18), the depressing spectacle of the House of Representatives impeachment vote on Donald Trump occurred, and I happened to come across an even more depressing op-ed by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post.  Zakaria described a trend toward repression of minorities, tribalism, and incipient totalitarianism.

    • The widening schism between Hindus and Muslims in India,  now being codified into laws that repress the latter. For a look at the rising persecution of Muslims in India, check out this in The New Yorker.
    • Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Trumplike attack on the Israeli justice system, together with an accusation that the police and prosecutors are attempting a coup.
    • Hungary’s  Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s moves to silence opposition voices, curtail the power of local governments, and throttle immigration with fences and razor wire and a limit of 10 asylum applications per day.
    • The massive government persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar.
    • White-hot partisanship in the U.S. political system (compounded by the resurgence of White Nationalism), whipped up by a demagogue whose bent is toward autocracy.

Zakaria refers to the human rights watchdog group Freedom House finding a worldwide decline in global freedom over the past 13 years. He quotes Stanford’s Larry Diamond, coeditor of The Journal of  Democracy, saying that we are seeing a worldwide “Democratic Recession.” Zakaria puts it more strongly: it may be a “Democratic Depression.

Totalitarianism in the Information Age: the China model

To Zakaria’s list, we can add human-rights abuses in China, on the cusp of becoming a totalitarian surveillance state (more on that in later parts of Treading into Darkness).  The Chinese leadership’s actions to control its population is pulling it so far away from democracy that democratic aspirations are destined to become an illusion for the people of China (no matter what the outcome in Hong Kong).  The Artificial Intelligence-assisted mass surveillance system they have developed in the Xinjiang region to control, police, detain,  sometimes torture, and imprison minorities (such as the Uighur Muslims) serves as a model to extend throughout China going forward.

Continue reading “Democracy’s Downward Slide and Totalitarianism’s Upward March – Treading into Darkness, Part I”

Trump’s Immaturity Defense

Are you guilty if you don’t know right from wrong?

Not being a lawyer, I don’t know if the inability to tell right from wrong is a sign of insanity.  What I know of it comes from TV shows, movies, and written fiction. In those cases not knowing right from wrong  is a symptom of either insanity or serious mental defect, which exempts the defendant for responsibility for their acts. 

This line of thinking appears to be the line which the defenders of the President are taking.  Trump said the phone call was “perfect”—that’s the one where he was shaking down the president of Ukraine for political purposes.

The Republican defenders are now casting this manipulation of the newly elected president of a vulnerable, militarily dependent ally as a proper exercise of diplomacy. No matter that this is preposterous—when you are forced to defend the indefensible, any weapon that comes to hand is better than nothing.

It boils down to, the President gets a pass because he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong. Based on a life in which Donald Trump has been largely unaccountable for his actions, this is perfectly plausible.

Continue reading “Trump’s Immaturity Defense”

185 Democratic Wafflers Waiting for What?

Yesterday I saw that 50 House Democrats have called for either the impeachment of Donald Trump or an “impeachment inquiry.” The latter is to impeachment what a match is to a fuse—you light it only if you are aiming for an explosion—but the softer term lends the process a tone of propriety.

Which leaves another 185 Democrats waiting to see from what direction the strongest wind will blow. Most of them are in thrall to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who continues to put politics ahead of principle when it comes to calling evildoers such as the U.S. President and his henchmen to account.  (I had my Elizabeth Warren-inspired say on the politics-vs-principle issue in my two-weeks-old post,  The Impeachment Dilemma.)

A welcome breath of fresh air was stirred by Robert Mueller’s long-awaited public statement to the effect that Donald Trump had committed a crime but there was nothing he—Mueller—could do about it because of the absurd (he couldn’t say “absurd” but you know he thought it) Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting President. Therefore, he implied in the driest but most cutting possible language, it was up to another branch of government (i.e., the legislature) to go get the S.O.B.

Continue reading “185 Democratic Wafflers Waiting for What?”

The Impeachment Dilemma: Good Politics versus Good Governance

Impeach Now? Y/N

Answer: Y 

A month ago Elizabeth Warren was the first Democratic presidential candidate to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump ASAP.

Robert Reich, non-presidential candidate but straight shooter, did likewise in The Guardian on May 8.

In both cases, they saw evidence of obstruction  of justice so plainly exposed in what was the redacted version of the Mueller Report, that the case for impeachment was transparent and compelling.

Last night on CNN  Tom Steyer, who has been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump since the man took office (even before the Special Counsel’s  investigation had started), once again called for impeachment ASAP.  In Steyer’s view, the Mueller (Special Counsel’s) report had strengthened an already ironclad case.

The political counterargument

The argument against starting impeachment immediately is political. It’s the Nancy Pelosi-led camp urging the Democrats to go slowly and carefully with investigations to build a body of evidence incrementally—and to proceed with impeachment only if the body of evidence reaches critical mass. Otherwise, the violence of the reaction from the Trump base, plus the exhaustion of the political center of the electorate, would make Trump the victim he has consistently claimed to be, and turn the public against a rabid, overreaching, unjustifiably partisan Democratic Party.

The put-a-hold-on-impeachment policy is spun as “let the people decide,” as in, the verdict on Trump should be delivered in the 2020 election.   (Based on the questionable assumption that the election will not be decided by Vladimir Putin.)  What outrages Trump may commit in the interval between now and November 2020 are overshadowed by political considerations.

Continue reading “The Impeachment Dilemma: Good Politics versus Good Governance”

Cannot Indict a – What?

“Impermissible” – You Gotta Be Kidding Me

Key to Attorney General William Barr’s prevarications about the culpability of Donald Trump, is the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC’s) official policy that the indictment of a sitting president is “impermissible” because it would “unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

How does that square, Mr. Barr, with Donald Trump’s boast in January 2016, “I could stand in the middle of Times Square and shoot somebody and not lose any voters?”

Trump apologists will say the latter was merely a comic metaphor just to illustrate the utter loyalty of Trump voters. He “didn’t really mean it.”

But what was it he didn’t really mean? Just the shooting part, or the idea  that his followers absolutely believed he was above the law? Or the implication that, if he acquired enough loyal followers, that he really would be above the law?

Continue reading “Cannot Indict a – What?”

Low Crimes and Misdemeanors: Crushing Democracy One Shovelful at a Time

Scales of justice teetering all one way

Thunk, thunk, thunk, is the sound of Donald Trump throwing shovelfuls of partisan excrement on one side of the sagging scales of justice within a crumbling system of governance.  In one week he has named a blatantly partisan operative of the political right wing to the position of Acting Attorney General—without even bothering to give lip service to the obligation to get Senate confirmation—and gone on to deny the legitimacy of elections in places where the sole source of grievance is that the President’s allies may lose to Democrats.

Talk of impeachment is now much in the air, with pundits parsing the meaning of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be invoked in the case of impeaching a U.S. President.  Here’s the wording of the impeachment clause in the U.S. Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Continue reading “Low Crimes and Misdemeanors: Crushing Democracy One Shovelful at a Time”