A Duty To The Country? To The American People? To History? To Your Own Conscience?

 

Like by Nancy Ohanian

Everyone has to make those decisions for him- or herself. If you've heard me on Nicole Sander's or David Feldman's shows recently, you've probably heard me talking about A French Village, and about how each of us may have to decide where we are on a spectrum that goes from enthusiastic collaboration with fascism to violent resistance to it, just as the characters in the TV series were forced to. History Professor Walter Moss noted that Americans, "never having lived under military occupation by a hostile foreign power... have little appreciation for how complex everyday life could become under such conditions. Although most people would like to think that they would resist the Nazi invaders and not cooperate with them in any way, the reality for occupied peoples-- under the Germans and other occupiers-- was usually much more varied. FV depicts this well. Some collaborated; some cooperated partly; only a small minority engaged in active resistance."

It becomes even more nuanced, of course, when it isn't a foreign occupation but a fascist coup we have to decide how to position ourselves for or against. It hasn't come to that yet... but for many ex-Trump staffers, there is a decision they have to make now... or not make. AP reporter Jill Colvin wrote yesterday that "With just weeks left before the Nov. 3 election, now is the moment of truth for current and former Trump administration officials debating whether they, too, should step forward and join the chorus of Republican voices trying to persuade on-the-fence voters to help deny Trump a second term." After all, according to former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, Miles Taylor, Trump was routinely asking aides to break the law, using his former agency for explicitly political purposes, and wanting to maim and shoot migrants trying to cross the southern border. Taylor said that "Those who witnessed the president’s unfitness for office up close have a moral obligation to share their assessment with the electorate."

Other prominent “formers” have spoken out independently-- or are considering it.

Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote a scathing book in which he said Trump “saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed” on how to run the government. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis broke a self-imposed vow of silence in June with an op-ed slamming Trump’s response to racial justice protests. He and former director of national intelligence Dan Coats also were quoted extensively in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward calling Trump dangerous and unfit for office.

But Mattis and Coats, like former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have refrained from more explicit condemnations, often citing a “duty of silence” or a long tradition of military officials staying out of politics, according to people who’ve spoken with them.

Efforts to draw them out are ongoing. While former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen appears disinclined to step forward, there are hopes that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson might be persuaded to comment and that Coats might be urged to say more. And Kelly, a retired four-star general, is said to be on the fence and torn about the decision.

“I think that he loves his country and he wants to do what’s best for the country,” said Neumann, who served as Kelly’s deputy chief of staff at DHS and is hopeful he’ll speak out, even as others don’t think it will happen.

Officials like Kelly, with long careers and hefty pensions, would seem to have less to lose by doing so than more junior staffers like Olivia Troye, a former counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence who last week joined the campaign against Trump and said she’d be voting for Biden.

In a video and interviews, Troye has accused Trump of mishandling the coronavirus and being more concerned about his reelection prospects than saving lives. The White House punched back with an aggressive attack campaign aimed at discrediting her through a barrage of statements, interviews and denunciations from the lectern in the White House briefing room.

“These are not profiles in courage, but these are profiles in cowardice,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said of Troye and Taylor, dismissing them as part of a “fringe club of, quote, ‘Never Trumpers’ who are desperate for relevancy.”

Taylor said it was clear the White House was “coming after” those who speak out as a warning to others who are considering doing likewise.

“The White House knows if they show this is a very costly thing to do they will scare people from going forward,” he said.

He added that while more people are still considering coming forward, the White House tactics have worked to some extent-- dissuading one senior official who had been on the cusp of speaking out.

Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican strategist who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, stressed that time is running out.

“There will be a cottage industry when Trump is out of office of people who say, ‘Oh, I fought from the inside, I fought the good fight, I kept so many bad things from happening.’” he said. “It doesn’t matter. There’s only one moment in time where it matters. And that’s now.”





...Anthony Scaramucci, who turned against the president last year after a short stint as White House communications director, has also been in discussions with those on the fence and is using every channel he can find to spread his message, including a new anti-Trump documentary.

“We have to keep the pressure on, and so for me it’s a multimedia approach. It’s radio, it’s podcasts, it’s Twitter, it’s television and it’s movies,” he said. “As a citizen all I’ve tried to do is provide a surgeon general’s warning... This guy is a threat to the institutions of democracy, and I worked for him and I think it’s important to send a signal to other people,” he said, that it’s OK to speak out.

And a lot is going to fall on Biden's shoulders, shoulder's I'm afraid not up to the task. In his NY Times OpEd yesterday, How To Debate Someone Who Lies, psychiatrist Richard Friedman offered Biden some advice: "Don’t waste your time fact-checking the president. If you attempt to counter every falsehood or distortion that Mr. Trump serves up, you will cede control of the debate. And, by trying to correct him, you will paradoxically strengthen the misinformation rather than undermine it. (Research shows that trying to correct a falsehood with truth can backfire by reinforcing the original lie.) Instead, Mr. Biden should use more powerful weapons that will put Mr. Trump on the defensive-- and also tell the audience that the president is a dishonest narrator. The first weapon may be the most effective: humor and ridicule. A derisive joke can defuse tense and outrageous situations. In 2007, for example, protesters dressed as clowns confronted a 'white power' march in Charlotte, N.C., holding signs that read 'wife power' and throwing white flour in the air. It made the white nationalists look ridiculous and avoided a violent confrontation, which would have served the interests of the racists."

I doubt Biden would dare, but he should only refer to Trump as "Donald," which drives him up the wall and would cause a complete crackup tomorrow night.

Trump Biden Debate by Nancy Ohanian

Last night I was talking with Mike Siegel, the progressive working to replace Trump ally Michael McCaul in a gerrymandered central Texas district. Defeating Trumpist enablers like McCaul is what's going to make all the difference in 2021. Mike told me his team is "this close to defeating one of the wealthiest and most reactionary members of Congress because we are running a people-powered, populist campaign that speaks to the needs of the people in this moment of overlapping crises. We are fighting for universal health care during a pandemic, a Green New Deal in response to massive unemployment and climate disasters, a renewed Voting Rights Act to battle massive voter suppression, and other programs to guarantee equality, dignity and justice for all. This poll will help us raise additional resources and win new sources of support, all in support of a transformational movement to flip a seat and usher in a new era of representation that is close to the ground and responsive to the people."

YES!!! We're in! Please contribute to Mike's campaign here. But how does Mike know he's close to beating McCaul? Once you leave Austin, it's a pretty red district. He shared a polling memo with me and said it was ok to run it on DWT. These are the key findings-- and from a relatively conservative sample of voters:

The TX-10 rematch between Mike Siegel and Michael McCaul is very close as we head into the final 5 weeks of the 2020 election. There has been notable movement in the race since our previous poll conducted at the beginning of August. Siegel has gained 4 points during these past 7 weeks, and now trails McCaul 45 to 43 percent (with Libertarian Roy Eriksen receiving 6 percent). The 2-point gap also reflects a narrowing of the 2018 result when McCaul won by 4 points, and Siegel is well-positioned to continue making gains as voters engage and the statewide environment further improves for Joe Biden.

The movement in the Congressional race is consistent with movement taking place at the top of the ticket in this rapidly changing district. In fact, TX-10 is a reflection of what is happening around the country as voters of color and college educated voters are forming a powerful Democratic coalition that is transforming districts that have been held for years by Republicans and are now becoming Democratic. While Obama lost the district by 21 points to Romney in 2012, Clinton cut that margin to 9 points against Trump in 2016, and O’Rourke tied against Cruz in 2018. In our latest poll, Biden is tied with Trump and has gained 4 points since August.

The following findings are based on a survey of 400 registered voters who are likely to cast ballots in the November election. The survey was conducted September 21-September 24, 2020 with live dialers to both landlines and cell phones, and is subject to a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval.

Key Findings:

• The political environment has improved for Democrats over the past 7 weeks, and the Presidential and House races are shifting toward Biden and Siegel. Biden gained 4 points in his race with Trump, and Siegel gained 4 points in his race with McCaul. Biden is now tied with Trump in the district, and Siegel is down by 2 points against McCaul (45 to 43 percent).
• Siegel’s coalition reflects the power of the political and demographic changes in the district. TX-10 has a very diverse electorate that is comprised of white (69 percent), Hispanic (13 percent), African American (11 percent), and AAPI voters (3 percent). Siegel is winning by large margins among voters of color, as well as with white college educated voters.

• College educated: Siegel 48 / McCaul 42
• College educated women: Siegel 57 / McCaul 35
• Voters of color: Siegel 60 / McCaul 26
• Independents: Siegel 46 / McCaul 36

• Siegel demonstrates his durability by maintaining positive favorability amid McCaul launching television and digital ads attacking him. Siegel has a +6 favorability rating (32 percent favorable / 26 percent unfavorable), which is particularly notable given the advertising on broadcast television that McCaul has run against him prior to Siegel launching his own television campaign. Siegel entered this race with high name ID for a challenger, which has helped him sustain his strength against McCaul’s efforts.
• The bottom line: this is a very close race, and real movement is taking place in a state undergoing profound political change. The survey shows that healthcare remains a very powerful issue, just as it had been in 2018 when two Texas districts flipped to Democrats and several others – such the Siegel-McCaul race – were decided by only a few points. McCaul is particularly vulnerable on his votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and voters express strong opposition to his healthcare positions that continue in the middle of this pandemic. Once again, Siegel is in a neck-and-neck race with McCaul-- and this time with a stronger wind at his back-- and TX-10 is a serious pick-up opportunity for Democrats.

As Rich Benjamin reminded Intercept readers yesterday "In order to win this presidential contest, liberals need to accept that Trump supporters do not care if he were to scrap millions of mail-in votes or to welcome, and even solicit, Russian interference for his cause. Not only do some Trump supporters understand that he is an autocrat who will cheat the rules to stay in power, that’s precisely what they like about him. The left should understand that many Trump supporters inherently believe that they would fare better under an autocratic system of white supremacy than under a multiracial democracy... Questioning all that fervent, widespread Trump support would force them to question how their neighbor, their cousin, their uncle, their co-worker, their favorite vendor is complicit to a regime that prioritizes their well-being and social privilege as white people, second only to Trump’s greed. To acknowledge your aunt’s or your own complicity in Trump’s nationalist autocracy might make you feel accountable for what this country is. And that accountability to the problem damns you to an accountability to the solution... Wealth redistribution to the top, privatization, extreme incoming inequality, and ruling kleptocracy: Such are the hallmarks of this regime’s totalitarian capitalism, one that exploits catastrophe to further undercut a fair economy, a robust middle class, and truly representative democracy."

Have You Ever Played The "Who's The Nazi" Game?

Taegan Goddard dug up this wonderful Dorothy Thompson piece from a 1941 issue of Harper's Magazine, Who Goes Nazi?. This is an especially poignant question for me right now, not just because of what Trump has done to the Republican Party--and half the country-- but because I am in the middle of watching the excellent series, A French Village, which I cannot recommend strongly enough-- 7 dramatic seasons starting in 2009 about a small French village occupied by the Germans in 1940. Over the course of the show, the villagers adapt, many choosing collaboration, others choosing passive or active resistance. I keep wondering how long it will take, if Trump wins a second term, for California, for example, to turn into Un village français.





Dorothy Thompson's article may need to be updated soon. "It is," she wrote 80 years ago, "an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times-- in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis. It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become 'Honorary Aryans and Nazis'; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind." [How prescient of her, writing so many years before the on-set of Israel's Likud Party!]

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes-- you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success-- they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.

Let's look at Congress. Can you name 10 who would never, under any circumstances collaborate with a Trump/Nazi Regime? How about 10 who would be the most eager to be part of it? My guesses are just Democrats since you can pretty much consider all Republicans eager to get on board.

NEVER (JAMAIS):

• AOC
• Rashida Tlaib
• Ilhan Omar
• Jamie Raskin
• Ro Khanna
• Barbara Lee
• Pramila Jayapal
• Ted Lieu
• Jan Schakowsky
• Jerry Nadler

As Willing As Deputy-Prefect Sevier...Though Maybe Not As Excited By The Prospect As Philippe Chassagne:

• Anthony Brindisi
• Josh Gottheimer
• Ben McAdams
• Tulsi Gabbard
• Henry Cuellar
• Abigail Spanberger
• Steny Hoyer
• Kendra Horn
• Collin Peterson
• Stephanie Murphy

Did I leave anyone out? Please let me know in the comments if you have any good nominations-- for either list... or if I've been too harsh or too kind to any of these politicians. I'd love to know what you think.

Do You Ever Imagine How Hard You Would Fight Against A Fascist Take Over?

Lambchop by Nancy Ohanian

I don't think the theme of Suzanne Gamboa's report for NBC News yesterday-- 'White supremacy' was behind child separations-- and Trump officials went along-- would surprise many people. Like someone missed the fact that Trump's top domestic advisor, Stephen Miller is a deranged neo-Nazi, even if the media doesn't like using those words? Gamboa put it more politely just referring to Miller, as Señor Trumpanzee’s "senior adviser and immigration policy architect [as he] called for a show of hands among senior officials on separating children from parents [now looked at as] 'a damning display of white supremacy' and a repeat of crimes against humanity seen through history. In a meeting of 11 senior advisers, Miller warned that not enforcing the administration’s 'zero tolerance' immigration policy 'is the end of our country as we know it' and that opposing it would be un-American, according to two officials who were there." The Trump Cabinet, damning itself for eternity, voted with Miller who "saw the separation of families not as an unfortunate byproduct but as a tool to deter more immigration. According to three former officials, he had devised plans that would have separated even more children. No one who attended the meeting argued on the children’s behalf or on the humanity or morality of separating the largely Central American families."

Have you watched A French Village (subtitles) on Prime? It's really an excellent-- if horrifying-- depiction of life in this fictional village occupied by the Nazis during World War II, especially for Jews and other minorities. And there are plenty of French characters like Stephen Miller. Would you take your life into your hands to resist or would you collaborate-- and how much?





Two years ago NBC ran a precursor by Noah Berlatsky: The Trump effect: New study connects white American intolerance and support for authoritarianism He wrote that a new study "suggests that the main threat to our democracy may not be the hardening of political ideology, but rather the hardening of one particular political ideology. Political scientists Steven V. Miller of Clemson and Nicholas T. Davis of Texas A&M have released a working paper titled "White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy." Their study finds a correlation between white American's intolerance, and support for authoritarian rule. In other words, when intolerant white people fear democracy may benefit marginalized people, they abandon their commitment to democracy."

White people who say they did not want to live next door to immigrants or to people of another race are more supportive of the idea of military rule, or of a strongman-type leader who could ignore legislatures and election results. MAGA!!

Trump's bigotry and his authoritarianism are not separate problems, but are intertwined. When Trump calls Mexicans "rapists," and when he praises authoritarian leaders, he is appealing to the same voters.

If You Support by Chip Proser

Miller and Davis' paper quotes alt right, neo-fascist leader Richard Spencer, who in a 2013 speech declared: "We need an ethno-state so that our people can ‘come home again’… We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy." Ethnic cleansing is impossible as long as marginalized people have enough votes to stop it. But this roadblock disappears if you get rid of democracy. Spencer understands that white rule in the current era essentially requires totalitarianism. That's the logic of fascism.

Trump's rise is often presented as a major break with the past, and as a repudiation of American values and democratic commitments. But in an email, Miller pointed out that white intolerance has long served as an excuse for, and a spark for, authoritarian measures.

"People are fond of the Framers’ grand vision of liberty and equality for all," Miller says, "but the beauty of the Federalist papers can’t paper over the real measures of exclusion that were baked into their understanding of a limited franchise."

Black people, Asians, Native Americans and women were prevented from voting for significant stretches of American history. America's tradition of democracy (for some) exists alongside a tradition of authoritarianism (for some). The survey data doesn't show people rejecting American traditions, then, Miller says, so much as it shows "a preference for the sort of white-ethnocentrism that imbued much of the functional form of democracy for the better part of two centuries."

The Founders supported democracy as long as it was restricted to white male property holders. Today, our understanding of democracy is more expansive-- at least in theory.





In practice, the GOP has increasingly been embracing a politics of white resentment tied to disenfranchisement. "Since Richard Nixon's ‘Southern Strategy,’ the GOP has pigeon-holed itself as, in large part, an aggrieved white people's party," Miller told me.

Trump's nativist language made the GOP's sympathies more explicit, leading to further erosion of support among non-white voters. George W. Bush won 35 percent of Hispanic voters in 2000; Trump won only 28 percent. His showing with Asian-American voters was only 27 percent-- worse than any winning presidential candidate on record.

White people continue to decrease as a percentage of the U.S. population; at some point, it's going to be impossible to win a national, democratic American election with a platform that alienates people of color. The GOP, seeing their coming demographic apocalypse, has pushed voter ID laws and other barriers to voting to try to prevent black and other minority voters from getting to the polls. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker even attempted to delay elections for state seats that he believed Democrats would win.

"The GOP has dug itself into such a hole on this that the most practical effort to stave off these impending losses is to disenfranchise the votes of the same ethnic/racial outgroups against whom GOP messaging has been stoking animosity," Miller tells me. A party built on demonizing and attacking marginalized people is a party that will have to disenfranchise those same people if it is to survive.

Blaming authoritarianism on partisanship suggests that both sides are equally to blame for the erosion of democratic norms. But greater commitment to abortion rights and free healthcare in the Democratic party isn't a threat to the foundations of democracy. The growing concentration of intolerant white voters in the GOP, on the other hand, has created a party which appears less and less committed to the democratic project. When faced with a choice between bigotry and democracy, too many Americans are embracing the first while abandoning the second.

You can imagine that self-selected groups Americans reacted differently to the nationwide protests over the extrajudicial murder (lynching) of George Floyd. A new PRRI survey found that Republicans didn't change their opinions at all, while normal people were profoundly impacted:

The CEO of PRRI, Robert Jones, wrote that "In the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a police officer, the attitudes of Democrats and religiously unaffiliated Americans have shifted significantly, but there has been no movement among Republicans and white evangelical Protestants. For example, approximately eight in ten Republicans and seven in ten white evangelical Protestants continue to say that the recent killings of Black men by police are isolated incidents, rather than part of a pattern of how police treat African Americans-- views that are unchanged since PRRI began asking this question in 2015.”

The survey found that "a majority (56%) of Americans believe that recent killings of unarmed Black men are part of a pattern of how police treat African Americans, compared to 42% who say these are isolated incidents. These views are consistent with views in 2018 but the inverse of views from 2015, when a majority (53%) believed these events were isolated incidents. Republicans are about as likely today as they were in 2015 to say the killing of Black men by police are isolated incidents rather than part of a pattern of how police treat African Americans (78% vs. 82%), Democrats are about half as likely as they were in 2015 to agree with this sentiment (17% vs. 32%). Among white Democrats, this shift is even bigger (19% vs. 43%)." White evangelicals are nearly as racist as Republicans in general, their attitudes having remained unmoved over the last five years, with 72% in both 2020 and 2015 agreeing that the killing of Black men by police are isolated incidents."