Whereof One Can Speak 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦

Nothing special, one post at a time since 2012

One More Comment from Prof. Zimmer on the Pathetic Circus We Call American Politics

Untitled

That’s Florida’s thuggish Republican governor Ronald DeSantis using his own state’s funds to gather up immigrants in Texas and put them on a plane to Massachusetts (where the arrivals were greeted warmly by local residents). History professor Thomas Zimmer had a reaction:

Leading Republican elected officials: “Let’s round up human beings under false pretenses and treat them like cargo in order to use them as props in an illegal stunt to trigger the Libs and rile up the base!”   New York Times: “Here’s a new political tactic we haven’t seen…”

Untitled

There is almost nothing so vile, so inhumane, so outrageous that the mainstream media can’t press it into the established politics-as-horse-race framework, thereby sanitizing it and presenting it as just the latest development in the struggle between Team Red and Team Blue.

Since mainstream journalism is predicated on the idea that politics is a game between two teams that are essentially the same and journalists aspire to “neutrality,” which they define as equidistance from either side, whatever comes from the [Republican Party] has to be elevated to credibility.

Sometimes that happens by presenting bad-faith nonsense as serious policy proposals – that’s what we get after every mass shooting, when Republicans claim the answer to gun violence is more guns or maybe school buildings with just one entry point, remember that one?

If that doesn’t work, then the sanitizing effect is achieved by simply ignoring the actual substance of what Republicans have done and focusing solely on the “playing politics” part, the horse race and how it may or may not be affected by these actions.

It’s one of the most bizarre features of the American political discourse that it demands we pretend these are serious political actions, coming from serious political actors, instead of denouncing them as the extremist culture warriors they so clearly are.

In a healthy political culture, anyone involved in such a deranged scheme would be shunned and ostracized, the party that elevated them would have to pay a hefty political price. In the U.S., that’s evidently not the case. And until that changes, nothing changes.

Unquote. 

There’s more to this story coming out. According to a lawyer representing the immigrants, officials from the Department of Homeland Security participated in this fiasco and falsified government documents, filling in random addresses around the US as the immigrants’ mailing addresses. If this actually happened, there needs to be serious jailtime.

Understanding the MAGA Political Project

Last night, Judge Aileen “Loose” Cannon took another step toward legal immortality by turning down the Department of Justice’s offer to act somewhat judicially and allow the government to proceed with its criminal investigation of her political patron (the one referred to by the actual president as “the last guy”). When she became a judge, she swore an oath to “administer justice without respect to persons … faithfully and impartially”, yet she announced in her ruling that “principles of equity” required her to consider “the position formerly held by Plaintiff”. In other words, Loose gave her patron everything he asked for because he’s a very special person.

Now, more senior judges will be forced to remind a human monster that equality before the law is still a thing nd he’s just another plaintiff. Which will make him very, very mad.

On that note, I’m going to step away from this blog for a while, but leave you with historian Thomas Zimmer’s thoughts on what Loose Cannon and her ilk are trying to accomplish:

[The MAGA movement’s] assault on democracy [is] animated not by nihilism, but by conviction – by the idea that America must forever remain a land where a traditional white Christian patriarchal order is upheld.

This isn’t just a matter of semantics. The idea that we are dealing with nihilists and opportunists underestimates or ignores the Right’s ideological vision for how U.S. society should be structured and the deliberate, systematic way in which the Right attempts to realize it.

I appreciate [Tom Nichols, writing for The Atlantic] pushing back against the narrative that MAGA Americans are simply motivated by economic anxiety, for which there is very little empirical basis; and he’s right to reject the idea the conflict could be solved by compromise or persuasion.

[MAGAs] are indeed not interested in debate, or a different perspective, or building bridges, or compromise. The only thing they would accept from “the Left” (which is everyone in the pro-democracy camp) is compliance, submission. There is no truce to be had.

But the key question is: Why is “normal” political deliberation not an option, why are [they] so clearly willing to tear constitutional government down? Nichols has a clear answer: Because they are “anti-American nihilists,” purely driven by anger and resentment.

Leaving it there, however, is a little bit like parachuting into an ongoing conflict, seeing people with torches and pitchforks in their hands, and simply concluding that “Ah well, I guess these guys just want to burn stuff down” …

All this resentment, anger, and lust for revenge is not aimless: It is directed against certain traditionally marginalized groups of people who are claiming equality and respect, and against the institutions that are supposedly doing their bidding to destroy “real America.”

Nichols himself rightfully diagnoses “fears about social status” as an animating force behind the [MAGA] project – and all the evidence we have points to the fact that those are racialized, gendered fears about the “wrong” kind of people getting ahead in America.

This is absolutely key: It’s not a coincidence that all this anger and resentment is targeting people who have traditionally not been allowed a seat at the table of power, right at the moment when they are threatening to claim their seat….

These numbers … are indicative of a very clear rightwing vision for the country: The supposed victimization of white Christians has to be reversed, their rightful status at the top needs to be restored.

Among [Republican] voters 90% say Christianity is under assault; 3/4 say bias toward whites equals bias toward minorities; 70% say immigrants are undermining US values & traditions; ~3/5 say white men the most persecuted group; ~3/5 say men are now punished for acting like men.

This is why the president was right to tie the “MAGA Republican” assault on the political system to the broader reactionary struggle to roll back the post-1960s civil rights regime in his “Soul of the Nation” speech in Philadelphia….

The “nihilism” interpretation falls short of explaining what it is that holds the American Right together – [the defeated president] and his disciples, the Republican establishment, rising white Christian nationalist extremists, the reactionary intellectual sphere, rightwing militant groups.

All of these different factions on the Right are ultimately united behind the same political project of fighting back against the “Un-American” leftist forces that are out to turn the country into something it must never become: an egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic order….

Yes, they want to tear down and destroy, but only those institutions that are supposedly captured by this “Un-American” enemy within.

This is not at all an aberration from long-standing rightwing attitudes towards the state and civic institutions, which conservatives have only ever defended if they perceived them to be allies in the struggle to entrench traditional hierarchies. Whenever the government or the institutions acted as an engine of racial and social progress, conservatives saw it as the enemy. Conservative support for state authority and establishment institutions has always been contingent on them working to uphold reactionary rule….

At its core, the politics of “law and order” has always been a promise (and a threat) to mobilize all the tools available to the modern state to keep insubordinate groups in check and uphold a certain racial, social, and cultural order: traditional white Christian rule.

It is therefore not at all surprising that the January 6 insurrectionists were viciously attacking police officers while displaying the Thin Blue Line flag, or that this symbol is regularly displayed by those who embrace political violence against state authority in general.

The Thin Blue Line flag doesn’t say “We stand with the police” – it says “We stand with the police as long as they’re working to uphold the kind of ‘law and order’ that allows us to dominate with impunity while subduing those who dare to oppose our rule.”

… [It is crucial] to see how all of this is connected, all part of a multi-pronged, multi-level reactionary counter-mobilization that has a judicial arm, a political arm, an intellectual arm, and a paramilitary arm, all flanked by a massive, highly effective propaganda machine.

In this context, the supposedly mindless, nihilistic, anarchist raging has a specific role to play: to spread violent chaos and intimidation, in a direct assault on the foundations of democratic society. The MAGA raging is inherently political. Democracy depends on people feeling safe in the public square. If they don’t, because it’s ruled by intimidation and threats of violence, they won’t be able to participate as citizens. It’s what these extremists want: Rule and dominate through violence and harassment….

The “nihilism” approach completely isolates MAGA from the context and continuity of the long struggle over democracy and the fact that those who oppose it have often been willing to embrace violence, have often opted to tear the system down rather than accept defeat….

The fact that the Right in general is deliberately pursuing a reactionary political project, one that is animated by ideology and conviction rather than blind, nihilistic rage, makes the threat to American democracy more, not less acute.

Some Real World Perspective on the Case of the Purloined Papers

As I wait for the black-robed person with the lifetime judicial appointment to share her next pronouncement from on high, author and lawyer Seth Abramson expresses himself on the Florida fiasco. I especially found interesting his description of how a case like this works in the real world:

We have our special master! In a… uh… theft case… not involving attorney-client privilege or executive privilege or anything else special masters deal with… {sigh} This is all so goddamned stupid.

I earnestly admire those lawyers who are spending hours and hours analyzing the legal maneuvers in the Mar-a-Lago case. But I decided I couldn’t do it—because it’s all so stupid and farcical and pretextual and an insult to the rule of law and how {waves hands} all of this works.

I have worked *extremely* complicated criminal cases, from first-degree murders to armed robberies to felonious sexual assaults to financial crimes cases and other types of cases in which documents are at the center of everything. And let me tell you what the Mar-a-Lago case is:

It’s the equivalent of a man being caught with a gun over the dead body of his victim—smoke still rising from the gun, residue all over the hand of the shooter—with a *signed confession in his handwriting* pinned to his chest like he’s a kindergartener on his first day of school.

There is—I can’t emphasize this enough—nothing complicated about this case besides the political consequences and implications of it, which every lawyer in America took an oath not to consider when they became a lawyer (and that includes judges). So the whole thing is sickening.

The lawyers who are currently analyzing this case to death are doing so in good faith and are trying to be good people and lawyers. But they are also normalizing the idea that there are any actual complications to write about here. There are not. They are all invented and false.

There are no attorney-client privilege issues here. There are no executive privilege issues here. The defendant is dead to rights and has no plausible defense. Under normal circumstances plea negotiations would’ve begun immediately, and prison time would be a given to both sides.

I have committed myself to being honest with readers about the law, and also honest about my desire that our justice system be better than it is. How can I pretend to the readers of this feed that the Mar-a-Lago case is interesting when *legally* it is just effing *not*? At all?

And don’t tell me about this being the first case of its kind involving a President of the United States. Had Trump gone to Fifth Avenue as he once promised and gunned down a bunch of innocent civilians, would that make the resultant homicide cases *legally* interesting? Hell no.

Mar-a-Lago case talk is a flim-flam we’re sucked into because we feel like there’s no other choice. We “have” to discuss the minute details of the case for political reasons—and because T____’s the sort of criminal who’s never been held accountable and never takes responsibility.

But the other reason it seems we have to talk about it is that the federal judiciary in Florida apparently corrupt, and will openly treat a very rich and very powerful and very famous white male politician in a way that it wouldn’t treat anyone else. And it’ll do so unabashedly.

So every single reason to cover the intricacies of the Mar-a-Lago case is depressing. And I feel the world is depressing enough already. It should be sufficient for readers to simply know that T____ is dead to rights and would be imprisoned already if he were not D____ T____.

Yes, as a former federal criminal investigator, I can point out all the critical investigative steps the Department of Justice deliberately *didn’t* take—all of them dereliction of duty—for purely political reasons, which makes their repeated protestations that they’re above politics morally toxic but they could easily reply—or their defenders could do so on their behalf—that they’re just reacting to a corrupt judiciary that won’t let the wheels of justice turn unimpeded when the rich, powerful, and famous in politics are involved….

So when I write on the Mar-a-Lago case, I’ll write about a case in which the defendant has no defense and should already be in prison (remember, DOJ/NARA—extraordinarily—gave T____ 18 months to remedy his crime, and he refused *and committed more*) and the legal issues are banal….

It is true that in any case in which documents are seized, some documents not related to the investigation may be accidentally taken. These are returned *as a matter of course* (e.g., T____’s passports). If the defendant thinks some items were not returned, he has his attorney ask government agents for them back. If the government agents refuse, the defendant has his attorney go to the judge and a hearing is held and an order (if appropriate) issued. If the parties *dispute* whether something was properly taken, the judge may personally review the *handful* of documents answering to that description (and indeed it would only be a handful of documents). There would be no special master, no delay of the criminal investigation. None of the abject, embarrassing BS we are seeing in the Mar-a-Lago case.

This judge impeded a federal criminal investigation and will appoint a special master without D____ T____ having even identified any documents he thinks were wrongly taken or making any attempt to negotiate their return (or have the judge herself review them). It is all a sham.

Special masters are for cases that look nothing like this one—for instance when the office of a defendant’s attorney is searched. T____ has yet to even make the argument—because he could never make it—that he had a right to retain classified documents in his home post-presidency.

So yes, I do believe that every legal analysis of this case should begin with a disclaimer explaining that nothing about this case has been handled in the manner it would be handled were the defendant anyone but D____ T____—and that the rule of law has been bent at *every* turn.

The Russians Are Running Away

According to the Kiev Post, the stunning Ukrainian counteroffensive that began earlier this month has now reached the border with Russia near the town of Hoptivka. Let’s hope Ukraine can secure the thousands of square miles they’ve now recovered and eventually restore all of its national borders.

Untitled

Tonight, President Zelensky had a message for Russia:

FcZiTb2XgAUbouD

Ignore Their Cries of Indignation

When Joe Biden bluntly criticized the extremism of the MAGA mob, it encouraged others to speak plainly about the threat America faces. Two perceptive columnists had thoughts about the way others reacted to Biden’s speech. First, from Paul Waldman of The Washington Post:

Republicans have had their feelings hurt. President Biden criticized them, and they’re just despondent over it. They’re insulted, offended, deeply wounded. The Umbrage Industrial Complex has mobilized its resources, and all must pay heed.

It has been a week since the president gave a speech on the danger posed by “MAGA Republicans” waging an extended assault on the foundations of American democracy. And the Republicans can’t stop talking about how mean it was of Biden to say those awful things.

His critique was perfectly true. But what has stood out in the days since is how effective Republicans have been in focusing attention on the supposed spiritual injury they suffered at his merciless hand:

  • “Joe Biden calls for political purges and law enforcement crackdowns on his political opponents, and state media cheer him on,” said Fox News’s Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, inventing something Biden didn’t actually say.
  • Biden is “the most condescending president of my lifetime,” said former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley.
  • “Angry man smears half of the people of the country he is supposed to lead & promised to unite,” tweeted Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
  • A Wall Street Journal columnist condemned the speech as an “attempt both to marginalize the opposition and to intimidate it into submission and silence,” claiming it contained an “implicit threat” that the powers of the federal government “may be deployed against disfavored beliefs.”
  • One well-known conservative author with 1.6 million followers on Facebook and 350,000 on Twitter tweeted, “I don’t think Hitler ever said anything about the Jews that was as straightforwardly evil as Biden said about me, as a [FPOTUS] supporter.” (He deleted the tweet.)

This transparently phony whining was then taken at face value by many in the press, on the unspoken assumption that the complaint itself is proof of Biden’s failure to treat his opponents — who regularly call him a senile communist attempting to destroy America — with the proper empathy and concern. Reporters keep asking the White House spokesperson about whether the speech was too unkind to Republicans, even though Biden took pains to avoid criticizing all of them, instead addressing just the most extreme ones.

Every article about this topic is apparently required to make reference to two old supposed insults to conservatives’ tender feelings. Did you know that 14 years ago, Barack Obama said that some people cling to guns and religion as a focus of their political identity when they lose hope that either party will help them economically? Of course. You’ve seen that quote repeated a million times as proof of Democratic unkindness.

And in case you’ve somehow forgotten, Hillary Clinton once said half of [FPOTUS] supporters were deplorable! These days, conservatives are proving that she was, if anything, too generous.

These are the very same people who worship [FPOTUS], who can’t open his mouth without slandering people in the most vicious of terms. Some of them argue for censorship in schools by saying that people among their opponents would be fine if students were molested by pedophiles. But their feelings, we’re told, have been hurt.

Persuading the media to amplify their griping and put Democrats on the defensive is only part of Republicans’ strategy. They know the double standard reporters have: They expect Republican leaders to be ferociously partisan, so take no particular note of it when they are; yet they demand that Democratic leaders be polite toward the other side’s voters, and scold them when they aren’t. When was the last time you heard a reporter ask whether Republicans were showing the proper empathy and respect toward Democratic voters?

What’s even more important for Republicans is that the whining unites all their party’s factions, from establishment plutocrats to QAnon conspiracists. The stance of victimhood is absolutely central to conservative identity at the moment — something everyone can agree on: We’re being censored, canceled! White men are the most oppressed class in America! You’re not allowed to be a Christian anymore! [FPOTUS] says he is “the most persecuted person in the history of our country”.

This has become the all-purpose answer to any argument conservatives don’t like: We’re the real victims here. It’s supposed to be a moral get-out-of-jail-free card, and it can be used to justify even the most repugnant behavior…. When you hear conservatives pretend to be insulted by the latest thing Biden or some other Democrat said, remember: You don’t have to give it any more respect than it deserves.

Next, from Jamelle Bouie of The New York Times:

Should Biden have used more conciliatory rhetoric? No. He was divisive — just as he was when he called MAGA Republicans “semi-fascist” the week before — but this is a moment that calls for a perfect contrast between the two parties. If [FPOTUS] is leading an assault on the institutions of American self-government and if that assault implicates much of the Republican Party, then there’s no way that Biden can make his defense of the constitutional order without dividing people.

What matters is the nature of the divide. To divide against a radical minority that would attack and undermine democratic self-government is to divide along the most inclusive lines possible. It is to do a version of what Franklin Roosevelt did when he condemned “organized money,” “economic royalists” and the “forces of selfishness and lust for power.” It’s also a version of what Abraham Lincoln did when, in his first inaugural address, he took aim at those who would subject the country to minority rule. “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations … is the only true sovereign of a free people,” he said. “Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.”

“You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government,” Lincoln added, “while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’ ”

%d bloggers like this: