WTF Community

📝 Must Read Op-Ed and Profiles

Rep Liz Cheney fights back…R-WY.

Liz Cheney, a Republican, represents Wyoming’s at-large congressional district in the U.S. House.

In public statements again this week, former president Donald Trump has repeated his claims that the 2020 election was a fraud and was stolen. His message: I am still the rightful president, and President Biden is illegitimate. Trump repeats these words now with full knowledge that exactly this type of language provoked violence on Jan. 6. And, as the Justice Department and multiple federal judges have suggested, there is good reason to believe that Trump’s language can provoke violence again . Trump is seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work — confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law. No other American president has ever done this.

The Republican Party is at a turning point, and Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution. In the immediate wake of the violence of Jan. 6, almost all of us knew the gravity and the cause of what had just happened — we had witnessed it firsthand.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) left no doubt in his public remarks. On the floor of the House on Jan. 13, McCarthy said: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” Now, McCarthy has changed his story.

I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative values is reverence for the rule of law. Each of us swears an oath before God to uphold our Constitution. The electoral college has spoken. More than 60 state and federal courts, including multiple Trump-appointed judges, have rejected the former president’s arguments, and refused to overturn election results. That is the rule of law; that is our constitutional system for resolving claims of election fraud.

The question before us now is whether we will join Trump’s crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have. I have worked overseas in nations where changes in leadership come only with violence, where democracy takes hold only until the next violent upheaval. America is exceptional because our constitutional system guards against that. At the heart of our republic is a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power among political rivals in accordance with law. President Ronald Reagan described this as our American “miracle.”

While embracing or ignoring Trump’s statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country. Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system.

For Republicans, the path forward is clear.

First, support the ongoing Justice Department criminal investigations of the Jan. 6 attack. Those investigations must be comprehensive and objective; neither the White House nor any member of Congress should interfere.

Second, we must support a parallel bipartisan review by a commission with subpoena power to seek and find facts; it will describe for all Americans what happened. This is critical to defeat the misinformation and nonsense circulating in the press and on social media. No currently serving member of Congress — with an eye to the upcoming election cycle — should participate. We should appoint former officials, members of the judiciary and other prominent Americans who can be objective , just as we did after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The commission should be focused on the Jan. 6 attacks. The Black Lives Matter and antifa violence of last summer was illegal and reprehensible, but it is a different problem with a different solution.

Finally, we Republicans need to stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality. In our hearts, we are devoted to the American miracle. We believe in the rule of law, in limited government, in a strong national defense, and in prosperity and opportunity brought by low taxes and fiscally conservative policies.

There is much at stake now, including the ridiculous wokeness of our political rivals, the irrational policies at the border and runaway spending that threatens a return to the catastrophic inflation of the 1970s. Reagan formed a broad coalition from across the political spectrum to return America to sanity, and we need to do the same now. We know how. But this will not happen if Republicans choose to abandon the rule of law and join Trump’s crusade to undermine the foundation of our democracy and reverse the legal outcome of the last election.

History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process. I am committed to doing that, no matter what the short-term political consequences might be.

3 Likes

The long tail of Trump’s Big Lie: 9 ways it continues to affect American politics

Donald Trump isn’t moving on. Neither is his party.

More than six months after his defeat, Trump continues to declare that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him. And this lie, sometimes called “the Big Lie,” continues to have a major impact on American politics.

The lie would matter, as a matter of principle, even if it wasn’t having much of a practical effect. But it matters even more when it is fueling a national Republican push to make elections laws more restrictive, playing a significant role in who wins GOP nominations and leadership positions, motivating a partisan push to “audit” the 2020 results, causing another partisan fight in Congress, aiding the QAnon conspiracy movement, and affecting public perceptions of the current president.

Here are nine ways the Big Lie continues to reverberate.

Fuel for restrictive voting laws

Perhaps the most consequential result of Trump’s lies about what happened in 2020 is the slew of 2021 efforts by Republican state legislators to make it more difficult to vote.

Among other things, Republican proposals would reduce the availability of ballot drop boxes, shorten early voting periods and absentee voting periods, make it harder for voters to obtain mail-in ballots, increase voter identification requirements, prohibit 24-hour voting and drive-through voting, eliminate Election Day voter registration, limit who is allowed to return someone else’s absentee ballot and more aggressively purge voter rolls.

In many cases, it’s not clear whether Republican legislators actually believe the 2020 election was fraudulent or whether they are cynically using voters’ own misapprehensions about the election as political cover. The distinction is irrelevant in practice, since the lies are turning into suppressive bills no matter what the real reason is.

A career problem for Republicans who stood for truth

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who stood firm against election lies, now faces a primary challenger who has Trump’s powerful endorsement: Congressman Jody Hice, who began his campaign by uttering election lies (and last week made a misleading claim about the Capitol riot on January 6). And Raffensperger has already had some of his power stripped by the Republican governor and state legislature.

Another Georgia Republican who stood up for facts about what happened in 2020, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, announced this week that he would not seek reelection. Like Raffensperger, Duncan has made Republican enemies by declining to humor Trump’s nonsense.

It isn’t just Georgia officials on the hot seat for speaking truth. Nevada’s Republican Party Central Committee voted in April to censure Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske for refusing to investigate (baseless allegations of) election fraud and being too “dismissive” of (baseless) concerns about “election integrity.”

A rationale for a crackdown on elections officials

Republicans have not only targeted particular state elections chiefs. Lies about how particular counties conducted the 2020 election have provided a rationale for a broad Republican effort to restrict local elections officials.

A new Georgia law gives a state board the power to appoint someone to temporarily take over local elections boards. A new Florida law says a county elections chief can be penalized up to $25,000 if any drop box is made available in a way that violates the law’s requirements. An Iowa law signed in March allows local elections officials to be fined up to $10,000 for a “technical infraction” and charged with a felony for failing to implement guidance from the Iowa secretary of state.

And Republicans around the country have or are trying to forbid local officials, among others, from sending out absentee ballot applications to voters who have not specifically requested them.

An impetus for a change in House Republican leadership

Last week, Republicans removed Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney from the third-ranking spot in the party’s House leadership because of her vocal criticism of election lies – and replaced her with New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has repeatedly promoted those lies and who tried to get the election overturned.

A factor in open primary races

Josh Mandel, the former Ohio treasurer who is now running in the Republican primary for the US Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Rob Portman, has turned the Big Lie into an applause line in his speeches – proclaiming that he, unlike his “establishment” rivals, is willing to flatly declare that the election was stolen from Trump.

In Virginia, the just-concluded Republican gubernatorial primary featured a candidate, state Sen. Amanda Chase, who also emphasized her baseless position that the election was stolen.

Chase finished third in a seven-candidate field. But she wasn’t really alone: the winner, businessman Glenn Youngkin, made “election integrity” one of his campaign issues and declined for weeks to say that Biden had been legitimately elected, changing his tune only after he secured the Republican nomination last week.

The basis for an Arizona “audit” – and pushes for other audits

The Big Lie underpinned the decision of Arizona’s Republican-controlled state Senate to commission a so-called “audit” of the 2020 election in the state’s most populous county, Maricopa, after the county had already conducted an audit that found no problems.

The state Senate hired an obscure, inexperienced firm that is run by someone who has promoted election lies; the firm’s Maricopa processes have been widely criticized by actual elections experts. But Republicans in other states, from Georgia to Michigan and California, are now pushing for similar “audits.”

Another fight in Congress

The Big Lie led to the storming of the Capitol on January 6. Now, instead of working together on any number of other issues, Congress is spending time fighting over whether to create an independent commission to investigate what happened.

Of course, the two sides aren’t equivalent here: It is Republicans in particular who have turned what could be a moment of quick and easy bipartisan unity into yet another partisan scrap.

Ammunition for conspiracy theorists

As CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan has reported, the Arizona “audit” that is based on the Big Lie has become a fixation in QAnon conspiracy circles – a basis, albeit a ludicrous basis, to continue to believe that a series of states will somehow overturn President Joe Biden’s already-certified victories and that Trump will soon be returned to office.

Granted, QAnon adherents always manage to find some nonsensical reason or another to justify their nonsensical beliefs. But there’s no doubt that the continued prevalence of election lies has given the movement some ammunition.

An (unknown) effect on the public

Polling evidence suggests that there is a widespread perception among Republican voters that Biden was not legitimately elected. For example, a CNN poll in late April found that 70% of Republican respondents said they did not think Biden legitimately won enough votes to be president.

It’s impossible to say with certainty how this false belief is affecting these voters’ broader perceptions of Biden’s presidency. But it seems highly likely that it contributes to the polarization of the public, limiting the President’s capacity for earning the support of people who voted for Trump – and even limiting average Americans’ ability to have productive political conversations with each other.

4 Likes

The rising cost of being in the National Guard: Reservists and guardsmen are twice as likely to be hungry as other American groups

Civil unrest and pandemic deployments have led to extreme food insecurity among National Guard and Reserves

National Guard and reserve soldiers are having trouble feeding their families due to a year of record deployments.

Hunger among Guard members and reservists is more than double the national rate, according to U.S. Census Bureau data from mid-April through early June.

They report more food insecurity than nearly any other group, regardless of household income, education, age or race. Nearly one in five Guard members report sometimes or often not having enough to eat. And a third of those with a spouse serving in the National Guard or reserves report not having enough to eat. The numbers are even more troubling for National Guard and reserve families with children.

In an ordinary year, when they’re not activated or deployed, most reservists and Guard members spend one weekend a month running drills and two weeks a year, often during the summer, training. This schedule allows most of them to work civilian jobs or get an education as well. It’s a similar work schedule for reservists, who work for different branches of the military.

Over the pandemic the National Guard has faced longer deployments and periods of activation. They’ve overseen coronavirus testing, distributed food at the nation’s food banks, quelled civil unrest and more recently helped to administer vaccines, said John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association of the United States, an advocacy group. This is in addition to responding to more natural disasters such as wildfires and flood.

The National Guard has declared 2020 “the Year of the Guard.” Last year, the National Guard was activated for 11 million “man days,” the highest number since World War II, Goheen said. By comparison, in 2019 there were only 2 million man days.

Wayne Hall, a spokesman for the National Guard, said he is skeptical about the food insecurity census data. He said that between the Army and Air National Guard and the different branches of the reserves, there are 1.2 million service members but the census data only accounts for under 400,000 of them. He said he has not encountered service members who have complained of household hunger.

“These figures are an underrepresentation of the full force,” Hall said. “And almost a quarter surveyed didn’t report.”

Yet several military advocacy groups said they are seeing rising problems with food insecurity, and suggest such problems might be invisible to military leadership. Jennifer Davis, lobbyist for the National Military Family Association, said hungry Guard members and reservists are motivated to seem “fine" and are hesitant to seek help or reveal financial hardship.

“A service member has to consider promotability and clearances: You can’t afford to struggle too badly; you have to keep your bills paid,” she said. “You can lose your clearance if your finances are in a shambles, we’re talking even a bounced check. If it comes between paying the bills and keeping food on the table, there’s pressure to pay those bills. And there are concerns about sharing with your leadership that you’re struggling to take care of your family, because you never want that to come back and haunt you when you’re up for promotion.”

One National Guard member in Georgia said he lost his job as a schoolteacher last spring, as the pandemic began, because of his stepped-up Guard schedule. He asked to speak anonymously, because his termination is under investigation.

“Why are we activating more National Guard troops than at the height of the war in Afghanistan?” the guard member said. “You’re taking these people away from their families, and for what reason? There is no reason. This is becoming a problem for civilian employers.”

After nearly five months on the Hill, National Guard winds down Capitol deployment

Another National Guard officer who has spent seven months in uniform since the start of the pandemic, who also asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, said a full 25 percent of the National Guard was on active duty last June, dealing with the pandemic and civil unrest.

“The shadow issue that affects Guard troops right now is the ludicrous tempo at which they’ve been activated over the past year. It’s hard to find Guard members who have not been told to report in the past year, everyone has been pulled away from their regular lives,” he said.

If called up to active duty, low-ranking Guard members and reservists make a base pay of around $3,000 per month. When not on active duty, Guard members get around $200 for a weekend of drills, which is why most have other civilian jobs.

The spike in days worked takes Guard members and reservists away from their jobs, with many soldiers not drawing that income if they’re away on military duty.

Even in normal times, military spouses have higher levels of unemployment or underemployment than civilian populations, citing factors like job scarcity near military bases and frequent moves. Moving around can leave military families far from their extended families and increase a nonmilitary partner’s child care burden. Before the pandemic, 22 percent of military spouses reported being unemployed, according to a large Pentagon survey.

Advocacy groups, including the National Military Family Association and Blue Star Families, said they are seeing larger numbers of unemployment among military spouses due to the pandemic.

In some cases military families don’t take advantage of food assistance programs. Even before the pandemic, perceived stigma deterred military families who qualified for free or reduced-price school meals from taking advantage of such programs, said Josh Protas, vice president of public policy for MAZON, a Jewish hunger organization that works with military families. The past year exacerbated the problem, he said, with many low-income military families not availing themselves of, or even aware of, Pandemic EBT, a debit card system that replaced school meals when schools went remote.

Another problem involves housing costs, said Matt Pelak, a Guard member in New York City. Usually, a basic allowance for housing doesn’t kick in until a deployment is more than 30 days. Many of these deployments are fewer than 30 days, so the military doesn’t have to pay the housing allowance, putting an additional financial burden on low-wage soldiers. That means soldiers are paying for their rent or mortgage back home, plus wherever they are living while deployed.

Medical insurance often works the same way, adding to the financial squeeze, Goheen said. When guard members are mobilized or deployed at home, the only time they have medical coverage is if their order is 31 days or longer, he said. Guard members and reservists would then be eligible for the same medical coverage as active-duty troops. But those service members activated for less than a month have fewer options, and must obtain their own health care coverage.

Many Guard members and reservists’ military pay is not commensurate with their civilian salary, according to Protas, and many civilian jobs are not required to pay Guard members their wages during absences or even to keep the civilian jobs open for their return.

For the teacher in Georgia, the protracted nature of deployments in 2020 took a toll on his standing at work. He said the current level of financial instability and food insecurity had “everything to do with civilian employers and underpaid Guard members.”

He said things seemed to be going well at his school, but something changed. He said the administration began asking him to persuade his unit to change his drill dates and bombarding him with “questions that weren’t appropriate.” His teaching contract was not renewed.

The irony, according to Goheen, is that many of the covid missions for the Guard were working at American food banks, helping to feed the needy. And while the nation is increasingly vaccinated and signs point to economic recovery, Guard members and reservists continue to struggle.

Some of Guard members and reservists’ financial precariousness is because employers are tired of giving them the time off. All those absences put extra pressure on other workers and bosses, said the Guard officer who spent seven months in uniform.

“Back in the spring of 2020, employers were saying, ‘Yes, go, fight the pandemic. But as time goes on they’re less enthusiastic,” he said. “The cracks take time to show with these kinds of things.”

3 Likes

Trump wasn’t just an abnormal figure — psychiatrists say his rhetoric caused real trauma

Donald Trump was an unprecedented president in many ways. He was the first president to lack any previous political or military experience, one of only five presidents to win an election without the popular vote (and the first to also later get impeached) and the only president to reject an election loss outright in order to promote a Nazi-esque Big Lie.

For millions of Americans, the end of Trump’s presidency came as a relief — but for some, the break from normalcy has lasted far longer than they anticipated. Several psychiatrists who spoke with Salon used the word “trauma” to describe the lingering impact the last four years have had on many Americans, particularly those from marginalized communities most at risk from Trump’s rhetoric.

Dr. David Reiss, a psychiatrist who contributed to the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” told Salon that although many of Trump’s policies could be characterized as traumatizing, there were two areas which “crossed partisan boundaries.”

First, he pointed to Trump’s intentionally divisive rhetoric (policy-wise he was not that different from other recent Republican presidents) and noted that it has traumatized his supporters as well as his opponents.

“This is different from ‘normal’ pre-Trump politics wherein using anger strategically is not uncommon, but is typically not a personal attack and at least on the surface, it is couched in ‘mature’ language and focused on policies or specific behaviors regarding policies rather than being personal attacks,” Reiss wrote via email. “Trump seems always willing to attack anyone who disagrees with him, or whom he does not see as sufficiently supportive of him. His attacks in very direct, personal, immature ways (name-calling/childish nicknames; stating overtly that opponents are horrible people, etc.), as well as Trump’s using occasions that are typically at least superficially non-partisan (holidays, tragedies, etc.) to almost always include an attack on some person or persons, is far outside of what is normal.”

These actions traumatize supporters by triggering their anger in emotionally damaging ways, and, more importantly, make his opponents targets for very real-life abuse from Trump’s supporters, Reiss said. His political opponents, meanwhile, have to endure an unusual amount of verbal abuse — even for contemporary politics.

Dr. Gail Saltz, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the NY Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, also noted Trump’s extreme and cruel rhetoric as abnormal in American politics.

“President Trump used deprecating, extreme, cruel language to discuss anyone or groups he did not agree with,” Saltz told Salon via email. “He often included an indictment of the person or group with verbally aggressive language, even suggesting at times for others who agreed with him to rise up and ‘defeat’ any who would oppose him. He ridiculed and shamed others around him and constantly threatened others with being treated aggressively should they fail to support him.”

Even worse, Trump’s actions “gave permission to many people to treat other people and groups the same way. As a result, it had a ripple effect, where targeted groups (due to immigration status, race, religion, sexuality, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.) were being treated badly through being shamed, threatened with violence, and threatened with loss (money, inclusion, a home to live in, shunning from their society, etc.).”

When Trump wasn’t abusing people with his juvenile insults, he was altering their sense of reality to meet his own political purposes. This occurred most infamously, of course, with his refusal to accept the science behind COVID-19 or the objective reality that he lost the 2020 election.

“Similarly, although with somewhat different content, Trump’s constant ‘redefining of reality’ to meet his needs of the moment, often with minimal connection with objective reality or in direct contradiction of facts, and not infrequently even internally inconsistent (Just last week: From ‘No one knows more about taxes than me’ to ‘No one really knows about taxes’) is traumatizing,” Reiss said. “Again, agree or disagree, these statements are at best discombobulating, if not overtly traumatizing (i.e., ‘gaslighting’). Even if a person supports Trump, the constant fluctuations of his definition of reality is disorganizing and anxiety-provoking — and then ties into triggering anger at others who do not support whichever point of view you adopt.”

Saltz had a similar observation, explaining that “when a leader makes statements that deny reality, enforce that only news they agree with is real news and all else is fake news can further the trauma for those people who are living with the difficult consequences of their reality. So to be in terrible struggle and then have the leader, the person in charge, say it is not your reality can only add to trauma.”

She compared Trump to other world leaders who have traumatized people — including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and Spain’s Francisco Franco — arguing that “the very essence of trauma is believing that your life or future life has been put at real risk, that you experience living through an utterly frightening and dangerous time that is not typical for the human experience of feeling safe and having some security.”

She added, “This type of fearful loss of the ability to say ‘I am okay, I will be okay’ can generate ongoing psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, intrusive frightening thoughts, flashback reoccurrences of terrible moments, trouble concentrating, sleep disruption and avoidance of anything that reminds you of the traumatic time.”

Olivia James, a London-based therapist who specializes in trauma, recalled that roughly one-third of her practice reported unanticipated physical responses when Trump began smearing then-candidate Joe Biden on the campaign trail.

“Several people reported they found themselves breathing deeply from their bellies,” James wrote to Salon. “Their shoulders dropped. And they didn’t even realize they were holding four years of tension in their shoulders or diaphragm. Four others spontaneously started to weep. They found they were grieving the past four years.”

James elaborated on how Trump is so effective at hurting people.

“Trump is widely regarded as a malignant narcissist; twisting the truth, gaslighting and bullying,” James explained. “Trump uses DARVO - a blame-shifting strategy used by abusers including narcissists: 1. Deny 2. Attack 3. Reverse Victim & Offender. He used it against 20 women who accused him of sexual assault. He’s also used it to claim the Democrats were trying to steal the election he won by a landslide.”

James later added, “The fact that so many Republicans backed him even after he showed what he was capable of will also add to the trauma and anxiety. There’s also the real fear that he may come back, so the hyper-vigilance will continue.”

Yet she said people should not feel embarrassed or believe they are powerless at Trump’s hands.

“If you feel traumatised by Trump, this means your empathy and moral compass are still functioning,” James said. “Find your tribe so you don’t feel so isolated and powerless. We’ve got to hold onto our hope and our shared humanity. Focus on what you can do, individually and collectively. Even micro actions will help you feel like you have agency.”

3 Likes

An American Kingdom

A new and rapidly growing Christian movement is openly political, wants a nation under God’s authority, and is central to Donald Trump’s GOP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/11/mercy-culture-church/

FORT WORTH — The pastor was already pacing when he gave the first signal. Then he gave another, and another, until a giant video screen behind him was lit up with an enormous colored map of Fort Worth divided into four quadrants.

Greed , the map read over the west side. Competition , it said over the east side. Rebellion , it said over the north part of the city. Lust , it said over the south.

It was an hour and a half into the 11 a.m. service of a church that represents a rapidly growing kind of Christianity in the United States, one whose goal includes bringing under the authority of a biblical God every facet of life, from schools to city halls to Washington, where the pastor had traveled a month after the Jan. 6 insurrection and filmed himself in front of the U.S. Capitol saying quietly, “Father, we declare America is yours.”

Now he stood in front of the glowing map, a 38-year-old White man in skinny jeans telling a congregation of some 1,500 people what he said the Lord had told him: that Fort Worth was in thrall to four “high-ranking demonic forces.” That all of America was in the grip of “an anti-Christ spirit.” That the Lord had told him that 2021 was going to be the “Year of the Supernatural,” a time when believers would rise up and wage “spiritual warfare” to advance God’s Kingdom, which was one reason for the bright-red T-shirt he was wearing. It bore the name of a church elder who was running for mayor of Fort Worth. And when the pastor cued the band, the candidate, a Guatemalan American businessman, stood along with the rest of the congregation as spotlights flashed on faces that were young and old, rich and poor, White and various shades of Brown — a church that had grown so large since its founding in 2019 that there were now three services every Sunday totaling some 4,500 people, a growing Saturday service in Spanish and plans for expansion to other parts of the country.

“Say, ‘Cleanse me,’ ” the pastor continued as drums began pounding and the people repeated his words. “Say, ‘Speak, Lord, your servants are listening.’ ”


The church is called Mercy Culture, and it is part of a growing Christian movement that is nondenominational, openly political and has become an engine of former president Donald Trump’s Republican Party. It includes some of the largest congregations in the nation, housed in the husks of old Baptist churches, former big-box stores and sprawling multimillion-dollar buildings with private security to direct traffic on Sundays. Its most successful leaders are considered apostles and prophets, including some with followings in the hundreds of thousands, publishing empires, TV shows, vast prayer networks, podcasts, spiritual academies, and branding in the form of T-shirts, bumper stickers and even flags. It is a world in which demons are real, miracles are real, and the ultimate mission is not just transforming individual lives but also turning civilization itself into their version of God’s Kingdom: one with two genders, no abortion, a free-market economy, Bible-based education, church-based social programs and laws such as the ones curtailing LGBTQ rights now moving through statehouses around the country.

This is the world of Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White and many more lesser-known but influential religious leaders who prophesied that Trump would win the election and helped organize nationwide prayer rallies in the days before the Jan. 6 insurrection, speaking of an imminent “heavenly strike” and “a Christian populist uprising,” leading many who stormed the Capitol to believe they were taking back the country for God.

Even as mainline Protestant and evangelical denominations continue an overall decline in numbers in a changing America, nondenominational congregations have surged from being virtually nonexistent in the 1980s to accounting for roughly 1 in 10 Americans in 2020, according to long-term academic surveys of religious affiliation. Church leaders tend to attribute the growth to the power of an uncompromised Christianity. Experts seeking a more historical understanding point to a relatively recent development called the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

A California-based theologian coined the phrase in the 1990s to describe what he said he had seen as a missionary in Latin America — vast church growth, miracles, and modern-day prophets and apostles endowed with special powers to fight demonic forces. He and others promoted new church models using sociological principles to attract members. They also began advancing a set of beliefs called dominionism, which holds that God commands Christians to assert authority over the “seven mountains” of life — family, religion, education, economy, arts, media and government — after which time Jesus Christ will return and God will reign for eternity.

None of which is new, exactly. Strains of this thinking formed the basis of the Christian right in the 1970s and have fueled the GOP for decades.

What is new is the degree to which Trump elevated a fresh network of NAR-style leaders who in turn elevated him as God’s chosen president, a fusion that has secured the movement as a grass-roots force within the GOP just as the old Christian right is waning. Increasingly, this is the world that the term “evangelical voter” refers to — not white-haired Southern Baptists in wooden pews but the comparatively younger, more diverse, more extreme world of millions drawn to leaders who believe they are igniting a new Great Awakening in America, one whose epicenter is Texas.

That is where the pastor wearing the bright-red T-shirt, Landon Schott, had been on the third day of a 40-day fast when he said the Lord told him something he found especially interesting.

It was 2017, and he was walking the streets of downtown Fort Worth asking God to make him a “spiritual father” of the city when he heard God say no. What he needed was “spiritual authority,” he remembered God telling him, and the way to get that was to seek the blessing of a pastor named Robert Morris, an evangelical adviser to Trump, and the founder of one of the largest church networks in the nation, called Gateway, with nine branches and weekly attendance in the tens of thousands, including some of the wealthiest businessmen in Texas.

Morris blessed him. Not long after that, a bank blessed him with the funds to purchase an aging church called Calvary Cathedral International, a polygonal structure with a tall white steeple visible from Interstate 35. Soon, the old red carpet was being ripped up. The old wooden pews were being hauled out. The cross on the stage was removed, and in came a huge screen, black and white paint, speakers, lights and modern chandeliers as the new church called Mercy Culture was born.

“Mercy” for undeserved grace.

“Culture” for the world they wanted to create.

That world is most visible on Sundays, beginning at sunrise, when the worship team arrives to set up for services.

In the lobby, they place straw baskets filled with earplugs.

In the sanctuary, they put boxes of tissues at the end of each row of chairs.

On the stage one recent Sunday, the band was doing its usual run-through — two guitar players, a bass player, a keyboardist and two singers, one of whom was saying through her mic to the earpiece of the drummer: “When we start, I want you to wait to build it — then I want you to do those drum rolls as we’re building it.” He nodded, and as they went over song transitions, the rest of the worship team filtered in for the pre-service prayer.

The sound technician prayed over the board controlling stacks of D&B Audiotechnik professional speakers. The lighting technician asked the Lord to guide the 24 professional-grade spotlights with colors named “good green” and “good red.” Pacing up and down the aisles were the ushers, the parking attendants, the security guards, the greeters, the camera operators, the dancers, the intercessors, all of them praying, whispering, speaking in tongues, inviting into the room what they believed to be the Holy Spirit — not in any metaphorical sense, and not in some vague sense of oneness with an incomprehensible universe. Theirs was the spirit of a knowable Christian God, a tangible force they believed could be drawn in through the brown roof, through the cement walls, along the gray-carpeted hallways and in through the double doors of the sanctuary where they could literally breathe it into their bodies. Some people spoke of tasting it. Others said they felt it — a sensation of warm hands pressing, or of knowing that someone has entered the room even when your eyes are closed. Others claimed to see it — golden auras or gold dust or feathers of angels drifting down.

That was the intent of all this, and now the first 1,500 people of the day seeking out those feelings began arriving, pulling in past fluttering white flags stamped with a small black cross over a black “MC,” in through an entrance where the words “Fear Go” were painted in huge block letters above doors that had remained open for much of the pandemic. Inside, the church smelled like fresh coffee.

“Welcome to Mercy,” the greeters said to people who could tell stories of how what happened to them here had delivered them from drug addiction, alcoholism, psychological traumas, PTSD, depression, infidelities, or what the pastor told them was the “sexual confusion” of being gay, queer or transgender. They lingered awhile in a communal area, sipping coffee on modern leather couches, taking selfies in front of a wall with a pink neon “Mercy” sign, or browsing a narrow selection of books about demonic spirits. On a wall, a large clock counted down the final five minutes as they headed into the windowless sanctuary.

Inside, the lights were dim, and the walls were bare. No paintings of parables. No stained glass, crosses, or images of Jesus. Nothing but the stage and the enormous, glowing screen where another clock was spinning down the last seconds as cymbals began playing, and people began standing and lifting their arms because they knew what was about to happen. Cameras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were in position. The live stream was on standby. In the front row, the 85-year-old retired pastor of the church this used to be secured his earplugs.

What happened next was 40 nonstop minutes of swelling, blasting, drum-pounding music at times so loud that chairs and walls seemed to vibrate. The huge screen became a video of swirling clouds, then a black galaxy of spinning stars. The spotlights went from blue to amber to gold to white. A camera slid back and forth on a dolly. Fog spilled onto the stage. Modern dancers raced around waving shiny flags. One song melded into the next, rising and falling and rising again into extended, mantralike choruses about surrender while people in the congregation began kneeling and bowing.

A few rows back, the pastor stood with one hand raised and the other holding a coffee cup. And when the last song faded, a worship team member walked onstage to explain what was happening in case anyone was new.

“The Holy Spirit is in this room,” he said.

Now everyone sat down and watched the glowing screen. Another video began playing — this one futuristic, techno music over flash-cut images of a nuclear blast, a spinning planet, advancing soldiers, and when it was over, the pastor was standing on the stage to deliver his sermon, the essence of which was repeated in these kinds of churches all over the nation:

America is in the midst of a great battle between the forces of God and Satan, and the forces of Satan roughly resemble the liberal, progressive agenda. Beware of the “seductive, political, demonic, power-hungry spirit that uses witchcraft to control God’s people.” Beware of “freedom that is actually just rebellion against God.” Beware of confusion. Beware of “rogue leaders.” Beware of a world that “preaches toleration of things God does not tolerate,” and on it went for a full hour, a man with a microphone in a spotlight, pacing, sweating, whispering about evil forces until he cued the band and gave instructions for eternal salvation.

“Just say, ‘Holy Spirit, would you teach me how to choose to obey you,’ ” he said, asking people to close their eyes, or kneel, or bow, and as the drums began pounding again, the reaction was the same as it was every Sunday.

People closed their eyes. They knelt. They bowed. They believed, and as they did, people with cameras roamed the congregation capturing peak moments for videos that would be posted to the church’s website and social media accounts: a man with tattooed arms crying; a whole row of people on their knees bowing; a blond woman in a flower-print dress lying all the way down on the floor, forehead to carpet.

When it was over, people streamed outside, squinting into the bright Fort Worth morning as the next 1,500 people pulled in past the fluttering white flags.

“Welcome to Mercy,” the greeters said again.

By late afternoon Sunday, the parking lot was empty and the rest of the work of kingdom-building could begin.

One day, this meant a meeting of the Distinct Business Ministry, whose goal was “raising up an army of influential leaders” across Fort Worth.

Another day, it meant the church hosting a meeting of a group called the Freedom Shield Foundation, a dozen or so men huddled over laptops organizing what one participant described as clandestine “operations” around Fort Worth to rescue people they said were victims of sex trafficking. This was a core issue for the church. Members were raising money to build housing for alleged victims. There were always prayer nights for the cause, including one where church members laid hands on Fort Worth’s sheriff, who sat with a Bible in his lap and said that the problem was “the demonic battle of our lifetime” and told those gathered that “you are the warriors in that battle.”

Another day, it meant the steady stream of cars inching toward the church food bank, one team loading boxes into trunks and another fanning out along the idling line offering prayers.

A man in a dented green sedan requested one for his clogged arteries.

A man trying to feed a family of seven asked in Spanish, “Please, just bless my life.”

A stone-faced woman said her mother had died of covid, then her sister, and now a volunteer reached inside and touched her shoulder: “Jesus, wrap your arms around Jasmine,” she said, and when she moved on to others who tried to politely decline, the volunteer, a young woman, gave them personal messages she said she had received from the Lord.

“God wants to tell you that you’re so beautiful,” she said into one window.

“I feel God is saying that you’ve done a good job for your family,” she said into another.

“I feel God is saying, if anything, He is proud of you,” she said in Spanish to a woman gripping the steering wheel, her elderly mother in the passenger seat. “When God sees you, He is so pleased, He is so proud,” she continued as the woman stared straight ahead. “I feel you are carrying so much regret, maybe? And pain?” she persisted, and now the woman began nodding. “And I think God wants to release you from the past. Say, ‘Jesus, I give you my shame.’ Say, ‘Jesus, I give you my regret,’ ” the volunteer said, and the woman repeated the words. “ ‘You know I tried my best, Jesus. I receive your acceptance. I receive your love,’ ” the volunteer continued, and now the woman was crying, and the food was being loaded into the back seat, and a volunteer was taking her name, saying, “Welcome to the family.”

Another day, the Kingdom looked like rows of white tents where a woman in a white dress was playing a harp as more than a thousand mostly young women were arriving for something called Marked Women’s Night.

“I feel the Lord is going to be implanting something in us tonight,” a 27-year-old named Autumn said to her friend, their silver eye shadow glowing in the setting sun.

“Every time I come here the Lord always speaks to me,” her friend said.

“Yeah, that happens to me all the time, too,” said Autumn, who described how the Lord had told her to move from Ohio to Texas, and then to attend Gateway Church, and then to enroll in a Gateway-approved school called Lifestyle Christianity University, where she said the Lord sent a stranger to pay her tuition. Not long after that, the Lord sent her into an Aldi supermarket, where she met a woman who told her about Mercy Culture, which is how she ended up sitting here on the grass on a summer evening, believing that the Lord was preparing her to go to Montana to “prophesy over the land” in anticipation of a revival.

“I don’t understand it; I just know it’s God,” Autumn said.

“So many miracles,” said her friend, and soon the drums were pounding.

They joined the crowd heading inside for another thunderous concert followed by a sermon by the pastor’s wife, during which she referred to the women as “vessels” and described “the Kingdom of Heaven growing and taking authority over our nation.”

Another day — Election Day in Fort Worth — hundreds of church members gathered at a downtown event space to find out whether their very own church elder, Steve Penate, would become the next mayor, and the sense in the room was that of a miracle unfolding.

“Supernatural,” said Penate, a first-time candidate, looking at the crowd of volunteers who’d knocked on thousands of doors around the city.

A candidate for the 2022 governor’s race stopped by. A wealthy businessman who helped lead the Republican National Hispanic Assembly drove over from Dallas. The pastor came by to declare that “this is the beginning of a righteous movement.”

“We are not just going after the mayorship — we’re going after every seat,” he said as the first batch of votes came in showing Penate in sixth place out of 10 candidates, and then fifth place, and then fourth, which was where he stayed as the last votes came in and he huddled with his campaign team to pray.

“Jesus, you just put a dent in the kingdom of darkness,” his campaign adviser said. “We stand up to the darkness. We stand up to the establishment. God, this is only the beginning.”

Another day, 100 or so young people crowded into a church conference room singing, “God, I’ll go anywhere; God, I’ll do anything,” hands raised, eyes closed, kneeling, bowing, crying, hugging. At the front of the room, a man with blond hair and a beard was talking about love.

“Everyone says they have the definition for what love is, but the Bible says, ‘By this we know love,’ ” he said. “Jesus laid down his life for us, and we are to lay down our lives for others.”

He dimmed the lights and continued in this vein for another hour, the music playing, the young people rocking back and forth mouthing, “Jesus, Jesus,” trancelike, until the blond man said, “It’s about that time.”

He turned the lights back on and soon, he sent them out on missions into the four demonic quadrants of Fort Worth.

One group headed east into Competition, a swath of the city that included the mirrored skyscrapers of downtown and struggling neighborhoods such as one called Stop 6, where the young people had claimed two salvations in a park the day before.

Another team headed west toward the green lawns and sprawling mansions of Greed.

Another rolled south toward Lust, where it was normal these days to see rainbow flags on bungalow porches and cafe windows including the one where a barista named Ryan Winters was behind the counter, eyeing the door.

It wasn’t the evangelicals he was worried about but the young customers who came in and were sometimes vulnerable.

“Maybe someone is struggling with their identity,” Ryan said.

He was not struggling. He was 27, a lapsed Methodist who counted himself lucky that he had never heard the voice of a God that would deem him unholy for being who he was, the pansexual lead singer of a psychedelic punk band called Alice Void.

“I never had a time when I was uncomfortable or ashamed of myself,” he said. “We all take care of each other, right, Tom?”

“Oh, yeah,” said a man with long gray hair, Tom Brunen, a Baptist turned Buddhist artist who was 62 and had witnessed the transformation of the neighborhood from a dangerous, castoff district that was a refuge for people he called “misfits” into a place that represented what much of America was becoming: more accepting, more inclined to see churches in terms of the people they had forsaken.

“It’s all mythology and fear and guilt that keeps the plutocracy and the greed in line above everybody else,” Tom said. “That’s what the universe showed me. If you want to call it God, fine. The creative force, whatever. Jesus tried to teach people that it’s all one thing. He tried and got killed for it. Christianity killed Jesus. The end. That’s my testimony.”

That was what the kingdom-builders were up against, and in the late afternoon, Nick Davenport, 24, braced himself as he arrived at his demonic battlefield, Rebellion, a noisy, crowded tourist zone of bars, souvenir shops and cobblestone streets in the north part of the city. He began walking around, searching out faces.

“The sheep will know the shepherd’s voice,” he repeated to himself to calm his nerves.

“Hey, Jesus loves y’all,” he said tentatively to a blond woman walking by.

“He does, he does,” the woman said, and he pressed on.

“Is anything bothering you?” he said to a man holding a shopping bag.

“No, I’m good,” the man said, and Nick continued down the sidewalk.

It was hot, and he passed bars and restaurants and gusts of sour-smelling air. A cacophony of music drifted out of open doors. A jacked-up truck roared by.

He moved on through the crowds, scanning the faces of people sitting at some outdoor tables. He zeroed in on a man eating a burger, a red scar visible at the top of his chest.

“Do you talk to God?” Nick asked him.

“Every day — I died twice,” the man said, explaining he had survived a car accident.

“What happened when you died?” Nick asked.

“Didn’t see any white lights,” the man said. “Nothing.”

“Well, Jesus loves you,” Nick said, and kept walking until he felt God pulling him toward a young man in plaid shorts standing outside a bar. He seemed to be alone. He was drinking a beer, his eyes red.

“Hi, I’m Nick, and I wanted to know, how are you doing?”

“Kind of you to ask,” the man said. “My uncle killed himself yesterday.”

“Oh,” said Nick, pausing for a moment. “I’m sorry. You know, God is close to the brokenhearted. I know it doesn’t feel like it all the time.”

He began telling him his own story of a troubled home life and a childhood of bullying, and how he had been close to suicide himself when he was 18 years old, and how, on a whim, he went with a friend to a massive Christian youth conference in Nashville of the sort that is increasingly common these days. A worship band called Planet Shakers was playing, he said, and deep into one of their songs, he heard what he believed to be the voice of God for the first time.

“The singer said if you’re struggling, let it go, and I halfheartedly said, ‘Okay, God, I guess I give it to you,’ and all of the sudden I felt shaky. I fell to the ground. I felt like a hand on my chest. Like, ‘I have you.’ I heard God say, ‘I love you. I made you for a purpose.’ When I heard that, I bawled like a baby. That was when I knew what I was created for. For Jesus.”

The man with red eyes listened.

“Thanks for saying that,” he said, and Nick continued walking the sidewalks into the early evening, his confidence bolstered, feeling more certain than ever that he would soon be leaving his roofing job to do something else for the Lord, something big. He had been preparing, absorbing the lessons of a church that taught him his cause was righteous, and that in the great spiritual battle for America, the time was coming when he might be called upon to face the ultimate test.

“If I have any choice, I want to die like the disciples,” said Nick. “John the Baptist was beheaded. One or two were boiled alive. Peter, I believe he was crucified upside down. If it goes that way? I’m ready. If people want to stone me, shoot me, cut my fingers off — it doesn’t matter what you do to me. We will give anything for the gospel. We are open. We are ready.”

Ready for what, though, is the lingering question.

Those inside the movement have heard all the criticisms. That their churches are cults that prey on human frailties. That what their churches are preaching about LGTBQ people is a lie that is costing lives in the form of suicides. That the language of spiritual warfare, demonic forces, good and evil is creating exactly the sort of radical worldview that could turn politics into holy war. That the U.S. Constitution does not allow laws privileging a religion. That America does not exist to advance some Christian Kingdom of God or to usher in the second coming of Jesus.

To which Penate, the former mayoral candidate, said, “There’s a big misconception when it comes to separation of church and state. It never meant that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics. It’s just loving the city. Being engaged. Our children are in public schools. Our cars are on public streets. The reality is that people who don’t align with the church have hijacked everything. If I ever get elected, my only allegiance will be to the Lord.”

Or as a member of Mercy Culture who campaigned for Penate said: “Can you imagine if every church took a more active role in society? If teachers were preachers? If church took a more active role in health? In business? If every church took ownership over their communities? There would be no homeless. No widows. No orphans. It would look like a society that has a value system. A Christian value system.”

That was the American Kingdom they were working to advance, and as another Sunday arrived, thousands of believers streamed past the fluttering white flags and into the sanctuary to bathe in the Holy Spirit for the righteous battles and glories to come.

The drums began pounding. The screen began spinning. The band began blasting, and when it was time, the pastor stood on the stage to introduce a topic he knew was controversial, and to deliver a very specific word. He leaned in.

“ Submission ,” he said.

“We’ve been taught obedience to man instead of obedience to God,” he continued.

“God makes an army out of people who will learn to submit themselves,” he continued.

“When you submit, God fights for you,” he concluded.

He cued the band. The drums began to pound again, and he told people to “breathe in the presence of God,” and they breathed. He told them to close their eyes, and they closed their eyes. He gave them words to repeat, and the people repeated them.

“I declare beautiful, supernatural submission,” they said.

2 Likes
3 Likes

Conservatives and capitalists are getting a divorce — and it’s going to get really, really ugly

On May 18, a pro-Trump think tank called the Claremont Institute hosted a conference at a Ritz Carlton not far from the Pentagon. It featured talks by a small but influential faction of American conservatives including former Trump national-security advisor Michael Anton, Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author and US Senate hopeful J.D. Vance. The event was billed as a response to a growing threat facing the American right, the latest and most urgent battle in the culture wars. It was titled simply “What to Do About Woke Capital.”

For several years now, the conservative movement has been fretting about its fraying alliance with corporate America, which has increasingly sided with progressive causes. In 2015 and 2016, boycotts by American Airlines, Eli Lilly, and Intel helped block anti-LGBT “religious-freedom laws” in Indiana, Arkansas, and Arizona. In 2017, pressure from PayPal, Deutsche Bank, and the NBA led North Carolina to repeal its anti-trans bathroom bill. In 2019, Disney, Netflix , and Warner Media moved business out of Georgia after the state enacted severe limits on abortion access. Last summer, dozens of major brands signaled support for Black Lives Matter. And in April, corporations from Coca-Cola to Major League Baseball denounced Georgia over its attempt to restrict voting and to hand control of the state’s elections to pro-Trump forces.

There is, of course, a simple explanation for these decisions: Corporations are seeking to align their public image with the values of their customers, shareholders, and employees. The positions considered “woke” by conservative ideologues — that police should kill fewer Black people, that abortion should be legal, that gay and trans people should not be subject to discrimination, that voting should be easier for everyone — are increasingly considered sensible by a majority of Americans.

“Corporations have awakened — to their duties,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale School of Management who has convened a series of high-profile Zoom calls with top CEOs to strategize political interventions. “And it’s a good thing. Using the term ‘woke’ disparagingly is odd to me. It’s hard to understand how the opposite — being asleep on the job — is preferable.”

But for conservatives the shift in corporate loyalties represents a deep betrayal. For the past half century, big business has been a reliable ally and major funder of the right. Corporations didn’t stay out of politics — they actively sided with conservative Christians to promote an “awakening” in American politics, defending traditional notions of family, church, and neighborhood against the threat of communism, civil rights, and labor unions. To ensure the survival of “our American way of life and our enterprise system,” beer magnate and conservative megadonor Joseph Coors said in 1975, “the whole business community is going to have to get involved in political activities.”

Now, the conservative political class is reacting to so-called woke capital with the anguish of a lover scorned. Sen. Tom Cotton has denounced giant corporations using their “wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people.” Sen. Josh Hawley bemoans an “alliance of leftists and woke capitalists” hoping to “regulate the innermost thoughts of every American, from school age to retirement.” And Sen. Ted Cruz ostentatiously swore off corporate PAC money in a Wall Street Journal missive entitled “Your Woke Money Is No Good Here.”

At the Woke Capital conference in May, the Claremont set went even further. The organization, which has a strong relationship with the Christian right, has positioned itself as the vanguard of a conservative realignment — shifting from market fundamentalism and toward a more militant right-wing nationalism. To Claremont thinkers, who have long worked to provide the intellectual scaffolding for Trump’s haphazard agenda, the enemy is not only the left, but the inherent decadence of America’s corporate elites.

“In just three generations,” said Arthur Milikh, executive director of Claremont’s new Center for the American Way of Life, “America’s most powerful corporations went from being more or less patriotic” to being “globalist” enablers of a “woke oligarchic state.”

As Milikh sees it, the right gave American corporations everything they wanted — tax breaks, free trade, open immigration — naively believing that capitalists would defend conservative values. But instead, he lamented, “much of the conservative establishment came to view the pinnacle of human life as private consumption and personal license, defining national health by GDP growth.” The result has been not only “spiritual enervation” and “the weakening of patriotic sentiment” but “the creation of a new oligarchic elite openly hostile to the nation.”

This new theme of the Trumpist right — that American corporations are, in essence, no longer American — represents a profound fissure in the conservative movement. The campaign against woke capital is driving a wedge between social conservatives and big business, fracturing the long-standing coalition that helped drive American politics to the right. As Tucker Carlson summed it up in the title of his keynote address at a 2019 conference on conservative nationalism, “Big Business Doesn’t Care About Your Family.” What distinguishes these new populists from the old guard of mainstream conservatism is their explicit aspiration to replace the current elite with a new one — a strategy intended to extend the MAGA right’s vision of minority rule long into the future.

From the outside, the long, enduring marriage of Christian traditionalism and capitalist free enterprise looked remarkably stable and mutually beneficial. From inside the conservative movement, though, it was always more a marriage of convenience than of philosophical affinity.

On one side of the alliance were traditionalists — communitarian Christians, agrarian nostalgics, neo-confederates — who sought a theologically informed moral order. They were ambivalent about capitalism, which views liberal individualism as the building block of political and social life. On the other side of the alliance were libertarians and free-market evangelists, who saw the state as the primary threat to human freedom.

What brought the two sides together, and gave birth to the modern conservative movement, was Communism. During the Cold War, William F. Buckley’s National Review brokered an uneasy peace between these competing tendencies. American liberals, the Review set reasoned, would never be sufficiently committed to Christian virtue or to free enterprise to resist the onslaught of Communism. The answer was “fusionism,” a political coalition of Christians and capitalists whose shared goal — defending Western civilization from its enemies within and without — was sufficient to solidify an alliance.


"Fusionism," the uneasy coalition of Christian traditionalism and capitalist free enterprise, was brokered by the National Review, under William F. Buckley. - Mark Harris for Insider

But for those at the Claremont conference, who see themselves as the inheritors of the traditionalist position, fusionism turned out to be a Faustian bargain. Wealthy elites got their way, basking in unrivaled wealth and personal liberty, while traditionalists got the short end of the stick: a disenchanted, amoral society where abortion is legal, conspicuous consumption has replaced spiritual fulfillment, and individual self-expression trumps virtue.

“Everyone on the right has basically been fed this Adam Smith fairy tale about economic and political history, in which all the good things should go together,” Julius Krein, the editor of the right-wing journal American Affairs, told me. “That’s fusionism: free markets plus moral virtue. It’s all a nice, big, happy combination.” Seeing big business “at least rhetorically” embrace progressive causes has been, Krein added, “a huge threat to that whole fairy tale. Even if it doesn’t provoke resistance per se, it provokes a lot of consternation and panic because you have your origin myth directly threatened.”

In a sense, the right’s hand-wringing over corporate progressivism is just sour grapes — the whining of a political movement hoisted by its own petard. After all, it was the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that maximized the power of corporate leaders to impose their values on the public. First, in Citizens United they allowed corporate money to dominate the electoral process. Then in Hobby Lobby they empowered private companies to engage in religious activism, observing that nothing in the law requires “for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”

But in a perverse twist, conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to blame big business itself for the outbreak of wokeness. They’ve preached for so long that God favors capital, they have to find another explanation for why some of the world’s richest and most powerful corporations are abandoning them. So those at the Claremont conference blamed not the owners, but the managers they believe have usurped control of American capitalism.

This critique of managerialism draws on the theories of James Burnham, a founding editor of the National Review, who has enjoyed a renaissance in right-wing circles in recent years. His 1941 book “Managerial Revolution” argued that the corporate economy had become so complex that owners were forced to enlist technocratic managers to run their companies. Over time, Burnham thought, this new managerial elite would assume control of capital, reduce the owning class to mere shareholders, and proceed to “exploit the rest of society.”

For those at the Claremont event, Burnham’s concept of a middle strata between capital and labor serves as a way to exonerate wealthy owners, placing the blame for woke capital on a younger, inferior generation of mid-level bureaucrats. “What we’ve seen over the past several decades is the creation of this new bureaucratic and administrative layer within the corporate world, which is far less talented and far less productive,” Daniel McCarthy, editor of right-wing journal Modern Age, told attendees. “Woke young people coming to corporate America end up specializing in a kind of moral extortion over the people who are actually more talented and experienced than they are.”

For conservatives, the term “woke” — which originated among Black activists and artists back in Burnham’s day — remains closely associated with “identity politics.” In his opening remarks at the conference, Milikh defined the term as “the doctrine that so-called oppressors, identified by the color of their skin, must be humiliated, punished, and made to perpetually apologize for the sins of their fathers.” Such fantasies of racial vengeance, unmoored from the actual goals of today’s social movements, pervaded nearly every speech at the Claremont event.

What the woke want, said Azerrad, who teaches at Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian school, “is to redistribute power and honor to their preferred victim groups — you know the list — and to punish the oppressors: straight white men.” In a revealing aside, Azerrad recommended “a very amusing but also quite insightful” Twitter account called @WokeCapital, which documents examples of “corporate woke propaganda.” The account is also explicitly racist, referring to the NBA as "Apehoop League, " and captioning a picture of a mixed-race military couple with the words “Swirler Occupied Government.”


The MAGA crowd is particularly incensed that corporate brands have signaled support for Black Lives Matter. - Mark Harris for Insider

Presenters were particularly incensed by corporate brands that signaled support for the George Floyd protests last June. “No moment illustrated what woke capital meant for our country than the riots last summer tied to the Black Lives Matter movement,” J.D. Vance declared in his keynote address. Wearing a beard and evidently workshopping a bellicose stump speech for his Senate campaign, Vance accused Amazon’s Jeff Bezos of deliberately funding riots to undermine his competitors. “Who benefits most when small business on Main Street are destroyed?” he asked. Bezos, Vance said, is “getting rich from destroying America.”

The racist undercurrents of the Claremont conference are not incidental — they’re central to the emerging conservative realignment. Burnham, who was repeatedly cited at the event, believed that “Western civilization, thus Western man, is both different from and superior in quality to other civilizations and non-civilizations.”

The way to protect Western culture, Burnham argued, is not a democratic assault on the decadent oligarchy. Rather, the liberal managerial elite must be replaced with a new conservative elite, one that appreciates the threat posed by immigration and racial egalitarianism. Samuel Francis, a leading disciple of Burnham and a prescient theorist of Trumpism, argued in 1992 that “Middle American radicals” must “displace the incumbent elite, dismantle its apparatus of power, and itself constitute a new elite and re-constitute American society.” Only by doing so, he argued, could Middle America “preserve itself from destruction and extend its present moment in the political sun into an enduring epoch of civilization.”

Francis, not coincidentally, was a virulent racist, hailed by white supremacists as the “premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.” In 2000, after the Chamber of Commerce supported calls to take down the Confederate flag at the South Carolina capitol, Francis argued that big business was no friend of the right. “Capitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much an enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism,” he said. At base, today’s right populist war on so-called woke capital is a battle for power — by displaced elites — to shape the national consensus and define its most cherished symbols.

Nowhere is this clearer than in American Moment, another pro-Trump outgrowth of the Claremont Institute. Founded by a trio of 20-something conservatives — Saurabh Sharma, Nick Solheim, Jake Mercier — the organization describes itself as “dedicated to identifying, educating, and credentialing young Americans who will implement public policy that supports strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all.”

Translation: The group plans to recruit a new generation pro-Trump conservatives to replace the existing political and economic elite with … well, themselves. “If we don’t form our own elite,” the founders write, “one that is patriotic and acts as a champion for the great middle of our nation, the old regime will continue to win, and America will continue to lose.”

Trump failed, Sharma told me, in no small part because there weren’t enough “true believers” across the federal bureaucracy to implement his nationalist agenda. Sharma wants to change that. “We built up American Moment to create a pipeline of staff, essentially, that will go into congressional offices, future presidential administrations, public-policy organizations,” he said. “People that think like this, that are willing to devote serious parts of their lives to doing this sort of work.”

Where previous generations of conservatives dreamed of dismantling the entire administrative state, Sharma sees seizing and deploying political power as a necessity for making America great again. “People on the right are broadly shut out of culture,” he said. “And more and more so shut out of capital. So if we’re quickly approaching an America where the only thing the right can do is occasionally win elections, we better use whatever tools we have at hand to rebalance power in the other domains, and defend the interests of our voters.” To do otherwise, he suggested in the coded language long employed by far-right elites, would be to engage in “civilizational malfeasance.”

As for woke corporations, Sharma envisions a future Trump administration, staffed by ideologues “credentialized” by American Moment, that is willing to use a variety of carrots and sticks — from tax hikes to antitrust enforcement — to discipline corporate leaders who engage in virtue signaling. “I think there’s a lot of interesting stuff to be done there,” Sharma said. “But it would require the complete takeover of the bureaucracies that implement this sort of policy.”

As an example, Sharma pointed to the decision last year by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to open a “formal investigation” into Princeton University, after the school said that “racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton.” Sharma imagines using antidiscrimination laws to “call the bluff” of businesses that admit to histories of racism. “Let’s use the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a hammer to bash every corporation that decides to virtue signal about this stuff, and see if they really mean it,” he said.

Sharma’s vision of a far-right administration using the levers of government to punish corporate elites hasn’t exactly taken over Washington yet. But throughout history, many a conservative revolution has begun with tiny groups of disgruntled ideologues gathered in hotel conference rooms. Just as the eggheads of Buckley’s era helped lay the groundwork for the Reagan revolution, today’s Claremont brain trust is working to set the stage for a regime that is far more nativist and nationalistic. Their plan, like so many Republican efforts these days, has little concern for democracy as such. They understand that if right-wing populism is to credibly embody the will of the people, a lot of people must be written out of the social contract.

“Re-establishing America’s ancient principles” would require “a sort of counter-revolution,” Glenn Ellmers, a senior fellow at Claremont, said in a recent essay. Seizing power, he goes on to explain, is “the only road forward.” It’s fine for conservatives to ignore or even sabotage the outcome of elections, he implies, because only Trump voters are “authentic Americans.”

And what of the majority who elected Joe Biden? What will become of them in the new, anti-woke America governed by a conservative elite?

“It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans,” Ellmers concludes. “But they are something else.”

1 Like

The dark future of far-right Trumpist politics is coming into view

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/dark-future-far-right-trumpist-politics-is-coming-into-view/

The anti-immigrant politics of a certain swath of Republican politicians and Donald Trump loyalists have taken a particularly virulent and ugly turn of late — and if you look closely, you can catch a glimpse of the future direction that U.S. far-right Trumpist political aspirations might take.

This unsettling hint of what’s to come emerges, surprisingly, from the confluence of two big developments in our politics that aren’t linked in any obvious sense: the surge in covid-19 cases, and the battle over the coming resettlement of Afghan refugees in the United States.

Right now, the Republican Party is deeply split over the refugees created by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as a new report from the New York Times details. While some Republicans recognize an obligation to admit them here, as many worked alongside the United States, many are aligning with Trump and demagoguing them in the most despicable terms imaginable.

Meanwhile, with covid cases on the rise, GOP governors in states seeing the worst outbreaks are escalating efforts to blame this on migrants who, fleeing their own horrors, are attempting to cross our southern border. The right-wing media disinformation apparatus has pushed this message with lockstep unity and unfathomably disgusting vitriol.

These two developments together bode ill for what’s to come. They suggest that U.S. reactionary right-wing movements may be characterized by a very particular form of rising nativist and ethnonationalist cruelty at exactly the time when increasingly pressing global challenges will require a diametrically different approach.

The future of authoritarian populism

A new book helps us make sense of this. Called “The End of the End of History,” it projects the future of global politics at a moment when Western liberal democracy’s future no longer seems assured, as the allusion to Francis Fukuyama’s famous (and misrepresented) thesis suggests.

This sort of increasingly virulent reactionary politics forms one of the “ideologies of the future,” imagined by co-authors Alex Hochuli, George Hoare and Philip Cunliffe. They posit a future authoritarian populism fusing a longing for “strongman” leaders with a “Malthusian narrative.”

This narrative sees pressing global challenges as an opening to build up a zero-sum ideology that emphasizes “limited resources” and a “need to reduce surplus populations” by “removing outsiders and other elements” that corrupt the “indigenous” population, as the Real Answer to those challenges.

What’s relevant for us here is the book’s argument that covid has provided this form of politics with a new reason for being, a moment it will seize by telling a “nationalist” story of the global pandemic:

A nationalist interpretation would see a forceful rejection of globalization and cosmopolitanism: the organic body of the indigenous nation is threatened by deleterious outside influences, and limits on resources necessitate their exclusion.

I think something like this may be developing in the U.S. right now. There’s a peculiarly ominous signal in the way GOP governors such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida are fusing their rejection of collective public health solutions with demagoguery about migrants.

Covid and migrants: A joint infestation

Abbott and DeSantis, each in their own way, declare that covid-bearing migrants are crossing our border en masse. This has been widely debunked, but the story is what matters: covid and migrants as joint infestation. Meanwhile, they have converted their public positions into platforms to speak to the Trump Rump, the shriveled national minority who sees mask mandates as collectivism run amok.

It’s the fomenting of hysterical opposition to local officials enabling communities to collectively protect themselves, combined with the aggressive redirecting of blame toward migrants instead , that makes this mix so combustible. Why take sensible collective action for the public good when calling for higher walls to keep out the joint infestation carries so much more force?

This conflation is everywhere. Right-wing media propagandists are relentlessly combining fearmongering about vaccines with scapegoating of migrants, positioning nativist, ethnonationalist cruelty as a kind of higher answer than science and collective action. Watch this extraordinary montage, and you cannot miss the centrality of that synergy:

Something similar is happening with Afghanistan refugees. Here our direct responsibility for their plight, and our reliance on them during the war, is absolutely undeniable. Indeed, as the Times reports, this is why some Republicans support resettling them here.

But this has only been met with an even more vehement denial of the very idea that this places a peculiar obligation on us. Indeed, as former Trump official Olivia Troye has revealed, Stephen Miller, the chief architect of Trump’s ethnonationalist agenda, expressly worked to undermine our programs for resettling Afghan refugees even as we were relying on them in real time.

Miller is now ubiquitous in shouting down the idea that we owe them anything, positioning them as the invaders, as the threat to us . And Miller is an active spokesman for the future direction of this sort of ethnonationalist politics.

‘Avocado politics’

This, too, bodes ill, particularly when you factor in climate change and the looming climate refugee problem. Climate is another area where our outsize contribution is undeniable. But this future reactionary right may well see this as an occasion to double down on that exclusionary “Malthusian” narrative.

Nils Gilman has coined the term “avocado politics” to describe this: green on the outside and brown (as in brown-shirted) on the inside. As Gilman suggests, this reactionary right-wing response will acknowledge the “climate emergency,” but primarily as a way to justify even higher “border walls to hold back the flood of those fleeing the consequences.”

It’s not a fun exercise to imagine what this might mean — in the right-wing imagination, anyway — for future militarization of our already hyper-militarized border. Unfortunately, this ugly convergence of covid and refugee politics should prompt us to start preparing for that future right now.

2 Likes

While I tend to feel there are parts that could have been handled better, it’s clear Biden was playing with a sabotaged deck when it came to Afghanistan, and given that, what’s been done there with the evacuation is miraculous, even as I am saddened by what is left behind, and what the Afghan people will lose.

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

Americans should feel proud of what the U.S. government and military have accomplished in these past two weeks.

America’s longest war has been by any measure a costly failure, and the errors in managing the conflict deserve scrutiny in the years to come. But Joe Biden doesn’t “own” the mayhem on the ground right now. What we’re seeing is the culmination of 20 years of bad decisions by U.S. political and military leaders. If anything, Americans should feel proud of what the U.S. government and military have accomplished in these past two weeks. President Biden deserves credit, not blame.

Unlike his three immediate predecessors in the Oval Office, all of whom also came to see the futility of the Afghan operation, Biden alone had the political courage to fully end America’s involvement. Although Donald Trump made a plan to end the war, he set a departure date that fell after the end of his first term and created conditions that made the situation Biden inherited more precarious. And despite significant pressure and obstacles, Biden has overseen a military and government that have managed, since the announcement of America’s withdrawal, one of the most extraordinary logistical feats in their recent history. By the time the last American plane lifts off from Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 31, the total number of Americans and Afghan allies extricated from the country may exceed 120,000.

In the days following the fall of Kabul earlier this month—an event that triggered a period of chaos, fear, and grief—critics castigated the Biden administration for its failure to properly coordinate the departure of the last Americans and allies from the country. The White House was indeed surprised by how quickly the Taliban took control, and those early days could have been handled better. But the critics argued that more planning both would have been able to stop the Taliban victory and might have made America’s departure somehow tidier, more like a win or perhaps even a draw. The chaos, many said, was symptomatic of a bigger error. They argued that the United States should stay in Afghanistan, that the cost of remaining was worth the benefits a small force might bring.

Former military officers and intelligence operatives, as well as commentators who had long been advocates of extending America’s presence in Afghanistan, railed against Biden’s artificial deadline. Some critics were former Bush-administration officials or supporters who had gotten the U.S. into the mess in the first place, setting us on the impossible path toward nation building and, effectively, a mission without a clear exit or metric for success. Some were Obama-administration officials or supporters who had doubled down on the investment of personnel in the country and later, when the futility of the war was clear, lacked the political courage to withdraw. Some were Trump-administration officials or supporters who had negotiated with and helped strengthen the Taliban with their concessions in the peace deal and then had punted the ultimate exit from the country to the next administration.

They all conveniently forgot that they were responsible for some of America’s biggest errors in this war and instead were incandescently self-righteous in their invective against the Biden administration. Never mind the fact that the Taliban had been gaining ground since it resumed its military campaign in 2004 and, according to U.S. estimates even four years ago, controlled or contested about a third of Afghanistan. Never mind that the previous administration’s deal with the Taliban included the release of 5,000 fighters from prison and favored an even earlier departure date than the one that Biden embraced. Never mind that Trump had drawn down U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500 during his last year in office and had failed to repatriate America’s equipment on the ground. Never mind the delay caused by Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller’s active obstruction of special visas for Afghans who helped us.

Never mind the facts. Never mind the losses. Never mind the lessons. Biden, they felt, was in the wrong.

Despite the criticism, Biden, who had argued unsuccessfully when he was Barack Obama’s vice president to seriously reduce America’s presence in Afghanistan, remained resolute. Rather than view the heartbreaking scenes in Afghanistan in a political light as his opponents did, Biden effectively said, “Politics be damned—we’re going to do what’s right” and ordered his team to stick with the deadline and find a way to make the best of the difficult situation in Kabul.

The Biden administration nimbly adapted its plans, ramping up the airlift and sending additional troops into the country to aid crisis teams and to enhance security. Around-the-clock flights came into and went out of Afghanistan. Giant cargo planes departed, a number of them packed with as many as 600 occupants. Senior administration officials convened regular meetings with U.S. allies to find destinations for those planes to land and places for the refugees to stay. The State Department tracked down Americans in the country, as well as Afghans who had worked with the U.S., to arrange their passage to the airport. The Special Immigrant Visa program that the Trump administration had slowed down was kicked into high gear. Despite years of fighting, the administration and the military spoke with the Taliban many times to coordinate passage of those seeking to depart to the airport, to mitigate risks as best as possible, to discuss their shared interest in meeting the August 31 deadline.

The process was relentless and imperfect and, as we all have seen in the most horrific way, not without huge risks for those staying behind to help. On August 26, a suicide bomber associated with ISIS-K killed more than 150 Afghans and 13 American service members who were gathered outside the airport. However, even that heinous act didn’t deter the military. In a 24-hour period from Thursday to Friday, 12,500 people were airlifted out of the country and the president recommitted to meeting the August 31 deadline. And he did so even as his critics again sought to capitalize on tragedy for their own political gain: Republicans called for the impeachment of Biden and of Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Within hours of the attack at the airport, America struck back, killing two terrorists and injuring another with a missile launched from a drone. A separate drone strike targeted a vehicle full of explosives on Sunday. In doing so, Biden countered the argument that America might lack the intelligence or military resources we would need to defend ourselves against violent extremists now that our troops are leaving.

The very last chapter of America’s benighted stay in Afghanistan should be seen as one of accomplishment on the part of the military and its civilian leadership. Once again the courage and unique capabilities of the U.S. armed services have been made clear. And, in a stark change from recent years, an American leader has done the hard thing, the right thing: set aside politics and put both America’s interests and values first.

4 Likes

Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ speech shocked voters five years ago — but some feel it was prescient

Let’s start with the obvious: “Basket of deplorables” is a weird turn of phrase. There are baskets and there are deplorable people, but pairing the two is the oddest of linguistic odd couples.

Hillary Clinton said those three words in the final months of her 2016 presidential campaign, making rhetorical and political history. There were two kinds of Donald Trump supporters, she explained: Voters who feel abandoned and desperate, who she placed in one metaphorical basket, and those she called “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic” — her “basket of deplorables.”

Trump — the same man who announced his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” — clutched his proverbial pearls, aghast that his opponent had uttered such a shocking slander. His campaign turned that insult into an asset; supporters wore hats and shirts proudly declaring themselves deplorable. Pundits seized on the phrase, debating who does and doesn’t deserve to be called that. Five years later, many believe “deplorables” — figuratively and literally — are here to stay.

This is not a cautionary tale: Clinton probably didn’t lose the White House because of a figure of speech. But it’s a lesson in how politicians make unforced errors. And, in a nation where half the country thinks the other half is wrong and possibly even deplorable, it’s about how we talk about each other.

On Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton was the opening act for Barbra Streisand at a glitzy fundraiser in New York City. A group of LGBTQ supporters were gathered at Cipriani restaurant, and the Democratic candidate had one job: to fire up her donors.

“I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. She launched into all the things she found “deplorable” about Trump: He threatened marriage equality, cozied up to white supremacists, made racist and sexist remarks — all things she found “so personally offensive.”

She warned there were two months left in the race and no one should assume he wouldn’t be elected anyway. “Just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” There was laughter and applause.

The people in this basket, emboldened by Trump’s tweets, were “irredeemable,” she said. But there was another basket: Trump supporters who just felt the government had let them down and wanted change — and Democrats had to empathize to win these voters.

“Basket of deplorables” was not in Clinton’s prepared remarks. She often improvised in speeches. Reporters jumped on it, as did the Trump campaign, which immediately slammed Clinton for not running “a positive campaign.”

Clinton apologized the next day in a very Clintonesque manner: “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” she said in a statement. What was the magic number? She didn’t say. She did, however, double down on calling out Trump’s bigotry and racism.

“It’s very hard to say you have a message of civility and then turn around and talk about how essentially a quarter of the country is, in your view, a basket of deplorables,” said Jonathan Allen, author of “Shattered,” a study of Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “That is a screeching conflict of her overall message, which is we have a civilized country and we need to be stronger together — that this should be a kinder, gentler, unified country.”

It’s easy to get careless at fundraisers: The crowd is pumped up, the mood hopeful. In April 2008, Barack Obama told a San Francisco donor audience that working-class voters in the Rust Belt “cling to guns or religion” as a way to express their frustrations. (Clinton, in the last days of her failed bid for the Democratic nomination, said she was “taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America. His remarks are elitist and out of touch.”)

Mitt Romney got into trouble for his “47 percent” slip, which was secretly taped during a 2012 fundraiser that was closed to the media. The Republican nominee explained to wealthy donors that almost half of American voters would pick Obama because they were dependent on government handouts. “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he told the crowd.

Clinton made the classic campaign mistake of playing pundit by explaining strategy to donors. She wasn’t writing off all Trump supporters; those who were scared and jobless might be won over. It was a delicate rhetorical dance: Have compassion for some , be afraid of others.

Trump repeatedly mocked Clinton voters, but his fans never worried it would hurt him. In fact, they loved him for it, as well as his attacks on the media, the candidates in his own party, John McCain’s war record and the judge in one of his lawsuits. “The more offensive and insulting he could be, the happier he was with it,” Allen said.

That was Trump being Trump. Clinton’s deplorables comment, Allen said, seemed to reveal a private thought that she had never dared state in public. In that way, it “ended up being symbolic of one of the things that her critics said they hated about her, which is that they believed that she’s inauthentic. And oddly, I think that was a pretty authentic moment.”

When asked about “deplorables,” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, said she was never afraid to denounce racism — just two weeks earlier, she gave a significant speech deconstructing the alt-right and the “quest to preserve white maleness” in America. “The deplorable comment may have been politically less than ideal, but it has been proven right again and again over the last five years.”

More sophisticated than “disgusting,” more biting than “unforgivable,” “deplorable” carries judgment with a side of self-righteousness. It comes from Latin, then reemerged in 17th-century France, where throwing shade is a national sport.

Clinton would use “deplorable” in statements when she was secretary of state, but as an adjective, not a noun. Washington jargon traditionally puts things in “buckets,” Clinton shifted that to “baskets” in the month leading up to the Sept. 9 fundraiser.

She used “deplorables” the day before her speech, in an interview with Israeli TV: “You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables — you know, the racists and the haters.”

“It’s worth remembering that when Hillary Clinton comes up with a phrase she likes, she tends to repeat it a lot and she can be very biting and she can be quippy,” Allen said. “It would have been different if she had said, ‘Half the Trump voters are behaving deplorably.’ It’s a small thing, but it’s a big thing.”

In Slate, linguist Ben Zimmer speculated that “baskets of deplorables” was inspired by a “parade of horribles” — a legal term that Clinton would be familiar with, referring to the negative consequences of a judicial decision. Several weeks later, Clinton joked about it at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner: “I just want to put you all in a basket of adorables.”

But the damage was done.

“I knew the first time I heard that phrase that she was very, very stupid for using it,” Republican strategist Frank Luntz said. “It is as insulting as any word in the English language. To be deplorable means you have no excuse as a human being. If you’re a deplorable person, it is saying that there is no redeeming quality to you whatsoever.”

Luntz knew it would be an opportunity for Trump to galvanize his base. “I thought she had committed a potentially fatal error: Insult your opponent, attack your opponent, criticize your opponent, even condemn your opponent, but never, ever, ever condemn your opponent’s supporters because you need their votes.”

Luntz tested “deplorable” in focus groups and found that it didn’t make voters more pro-Trump. “But it hardened opposition to her instantly as someone who had no heart, who was too ideological and dismissive of people who disagreed with her.”

A consultant to Clinton’s campaign agreed. Writing in the Boston Globe shortly after the election, Diane Hessan said that she tracked undecided voters and their reaction to “deplorable” was stronger than the controversy over Clinton’s emails or FBI Director James B. Comey’s comments about them. “There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice,” she wrote.

In “What Happened,” Clinton’s memoir of the campaign, she acknowledged that generalizing was almost always unwise and wrote that she regretted handing Trump “a political gift” by insulting well-intentioned people. “But too many of Trump’s core supporters do hold views that I find — there’s no other word for it — deplorable.”

Of course, voters are notoriously harder on female politicians, regardless of what they say. As Rebecca Traister stated in a 2017 New York magazine profile of Clinton, “A competent woman losing a job to an incompetent man is not an anomalous Election Day surprise; it is Tuesday in America. To acknowledge the role sexism played in 2016 is not to make excuses for the very real failings of Clinton and her campaign; it is to try to paint a more complete picture.”

In hindsight, how did “deplorables” play into all this? “It is impossible to say, ‘People reacted this way because of sexism,’ ” Traister said this week. “That’s not how it works. But you also cannot take sexism out of the equation whenever you’re talking about Hillary Clinton.”

And Trump? The Republican nominee, always looking for an applause line, said he was offended on behalf of all his supporters. “While my opponent slanders you as deplorable and irredeemable, I call you hard-working American patriots who love your country,” he told his audience at an Iowa rally. The campaign rushed out an ad in battleground states: “You know what’s deplorable? Hillary Clinton viciously demonizing hard working people like you.”

Mike Pence jumped into the fray: “For Hillary Clinton to express such disdain for millions of Americans is one more reason that disqualifies her to serve in the highest office,” he told reporters. During an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Pence condemned Clinton but, when pressed, declined to call any Trump supporter deplorable, even, say, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, who endorsed Trump. “No,” answered Pence. “I am not in the name-calling business, Wolf.”

MAGA fans could buy official “deplorable” merchandise from Team Trump — and they did happily. The term was “so mean that the only way for them to respond was to actually embrace it,” Luntz said. “And that’s how I realized she was in real trouble: If your strongest attack against your opponent is embraced by your opponents, that removes the sting.”

Five years later, you can purchase hats, T-shirts, hoodies and other gifts for the deplorables in your life. Patriot Depot, one of several online stores selling to Trump fans, offers a “Deplorables Club — Lifetime Member” cap for $19.95, The sales blurb explains: “Being a Deplorable is now a mark of pride among God-fearing, gun-loving, hard-working Americans.”

Clinton’s unusual turn of phrase foreshadowed an increasingly polarized America. We’re not just divided along ideological lines — we don’t even like each other very much.

The Pew Research Center found that from December 2016 to September 2019, the shares of both parties that viewed members of the other “somewhat” coldly or “very” coldly increased, as did the percentage that viewed them as “immoral.”

Those assessments were undoubtedly influenced by the 2017 Charlottesville rally and have been hardened by pandemic restrictions, Black Lives Matter protests and the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol.

“I’m proud that Secretary Clinton called out racism and bigotry in 2016, especially when that wasn’t the politically safe thing to do,” campaign speechwriter Dan Schwerin said.

Now, many of her fans believe she was prescient about “half” of Trump’s base.

“After four years of President Trump,” Allen said. “I think that there are a lot of Democrats and some Republicans who would say that was an undercount.”

4 Likes

Another powerful piece from Charles Blow about the hypocrisy of white Evangelicals and their utter abandonment of the “higher morality” they have long claimed they represent.

White Evangelicals Shun Morality for Power

Evangelical Christians castigated Bill Clinton in wake of his “improper relationship” with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He had sinned. He would be stoned.

Franklin Graham, the evangelical minister, wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 1998 that Clinton’s “extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family,” and that “private conduct does have public consequences.”

He concluded:

“Mr. Clinton’s sin can be forgiven, but he must start by admitting to it and refraining from legalistic doublespeak. According to the Scripture, the president did not have an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with Monica Lewinsky — he committed adultery. He didn’t ‘mislead’ his wife and us — he lied. Acknowledgment must be coupled with genuine remorse. A repentant spirit that says, ‘I’m sorry. I was wrong. I won’t do it again. I ask for your forgiveness,’ would go a long way toward personal and national healing.”

But Mr. Graham never demanded the same of Donald Trump. To the contrary, he became one of Trump’s biggest defenders.

When a tape was released during the 2016 campaign of Trump bragging years earlier about sexually assaulting women, Graham revealed his true motives: It wasn’t religious piety, but rather raw politics.

He wrote on Facebook that Trump’s “crude comments” could not be defended, “but the godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended.” He continued, “The most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court represents a more lasting power than the presidency, a way to lock in an ideology beyond the reach of election cycles and changing demographics at least for a generation.

In an interview with Axios on HBO in 2018, Graham said of his support of Trump, “I never said he was the best example of the Christian faith. He defends the faith. And I appreciate that very much.”

The courts are central to that supposed defense, in Graham’s calculation.

Case in point, his rigid defense of Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of cornering her in a bedroom at a 1982 house party. Graham dismissed the allegations as “not relevant” and said of the episode:

Well, there wasn’t a crime that was committed. These are two teenagers, and it’s obvious that she said no and he respected it and walked away — if that’s the case, but he says he didn’t do it. He just flat out says that’s just not true. Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that, so I don’t know what the issue is. This is just an attempt to smear his name, that’s all.

The hypocrisy of white evangelicals, taken into full context, shouldn’t have been shocking, I suppose, but as a person who grew up in the church (although I’m not a religious person anymore), it was still disappointing.

I had grown up hearing from pulpits that it was the world that changed, not God’s word. The word was like a rock. A lie was a lie, yesterday, today and tomorrow, no matter who told it.

I had hoped that there were more white evangelicals who embraced the same teachings, who would not abide by the message the Grahams of the world were advancing, who would stand on principle.

But I was wrong. A report for the Pew Research Center published last week found that, contrary to an onslaught of press coverage about evangelicals who had left the church, disgusted by its embrace of the president, “There is solid evidence that white Americans who viewed Trump favorably and did not identify as evangelicals in 2016 were much more likely than white Trump skeptics to begin identifying as born-again or evangelical Protestants by 2020.”

That’s right, the lying, philandering, thrice-married Trump, who has been accused by dozens of women of sexual misconduct or assault, may actually have grown the ranks of white evangelicals rather than shrunk them.

To get some perspective on this, I reached out to an expert, Anthea Butler, a professor of religious studies and Africana studies and the chair of the religious studies department at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the author of the recently released book “White Evangelical Racism.”

As Professor Butler told me, the reason that some people might be surprised by these findings is that “they believed the hype.” For years, evangelicals had claimed that they were upholding morality and fighting injustice. But what the movement has really been since the 1970s, said Butler, is “a political arm of the Republican Party.” As Butler put it, evangelicals now “use moral issues as a wedge to get political power.”

Butler concluded, “We need to quit coddling evangelicals and allowing them to use these moral issues to hide behind, because it’s very clear that that’s not what the issue is. The issue is that they believe in anti-vaxxing, they believe in racism, they believe in anti-immigration, they believe that only Republicans should run the country and they believe in white supremacy.”

3 Likes

Many in the nation, including medical providers, are suffering from compassion fatigue toward vaccine refusers for placing themselves unnecessarily in danger.

I don’t believe anybody should be refused treatment, but understand this burnout.

Vaccine Refusers Risk Compassion Fatigue

After the horrors that health-care workers have endured during the pandemic, many are struggling to sympathize with people who won’t protect themselves.

On social media, I’ve been seeing sentiments that I never thought I’d see anyone express in a public forum. People who choose to be unvaccinated should not be offered lung transplants . What if people with COVID-19 who didn’t get the vaccine have to wait in the Emergency Department until everyone else is seen? Should unvaccinated patients just be turned away?

These are harsh, angry feelings. And some of the people giving voice to them are doctors.

I am an obstetrician in New York. I have been working with pregnant COVID-19 patients from the very beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, in a medical institution and city that have cared for thousands of patients with the disease. Health-care workers have suffered through a terrible year and a half—a period first defined by a lack of masks and gloves, and throughout by the very real fear of personal sickness and death. We have been afraid of bringing the disease home, of infecting our spouses, of leaving our children parentless. For about three months, I didn’t kiss my children.

Read: When keeping your distance is the best way to show you care

Every day, my colleagues and I trudged past the temporary morgues in our hospital parking lots and the ICUs set up in the auditoriums and operating rooms and hallways; we signed too many death certificates; we washed our hands until they blistered before we let our families near us. We did that, every day, because we were trained to care for humans who needed us.

A lot of us went to work every day because the world needs to keep turning, and in that time, we were the ones turning it. Many others left medicine. One reason I didn’t was that humans needed help and I could provide it. But I also kept working because I needed to believe that, if I was ever in danger, other humans would come help me. Our comparative advantage as humans is that we can take care of one another and overcome adversity together. I did my part week after week, month after month.

Finally, in the depths of winter, during the week of my birthday, I received my first vaccine shot. Science had brought us a solution, and we could finally see the end of all those months of fear, exhaustion, and sacrifice.

But that’s not what happened. COVID-19 hasn’t ended. Instead, infection rates are going up. The Delta variant has taken hold, and hospitals are filling up again. But this time the suffering seems different, because it is avoidable. Optional. A choice.

The main reason the pandemic in the United States is not over is because people are not getting vaccinated. Some people may have good reasons for not getting a shot, but most people who refuse vaccination do not seem to be acting based on data or evidence. The refusals that we read every day seem more rooted in a general mistrust of government, or in a strong identity as “not that kind of people.” And those vaccine refusals mean people are getting sick, and will need care, and may die needlessly.

This is a fact that many of us in health care—all exhausted, all having given too much already—are having a hard time ignoring as we head into a new wave of COVID-19 patients.

Read: How did it come to this?

When people make their personal decision about whether to get vaccinated, they are not thinking about the trauma their health-care providers have experienced since early last year. And I am not asking them to consider it. Professionalism mandates that physicians focus on the disease in front of them, not the behavior that may have contributed to it. When my colleagues diagnose chlamydia in a patient, their first priority is administering antibiotics, not delivering a lecture about asshole boyfriends. But once those antibiotics are prescribed, that same professionalism must include making sure that the patient knows how chlamydia is transmitted, and how to avoid ending up in this situation again.

That person may or may not listen to a doctor, and that’s understandable. However, the population-level rejection of COVID-19 vaccines is a different phenomenon—and one that’s much more personally threatening to my colleagues and me. By refusing the most effective intervention, people are risking not only their own life but the lives of many around them. That includes those who cannot get vaccinated—my children among them. Because of the choice that vaccine refusers are making, my job may again force me to avoid embracing my children.

“What makes me the maddest,” one of my doctor friends told me, “is that these people will reject science right until the second they need everything I have to keep them alive, and then they feel that they can come to our door and be entitled to that help and that hard work.” This friend is characterizing the inconsistency in the behavior she sees in people declining a vaccine but then demanding medical care based on the same science. That inconsistency feels, to her and to other dedicated medical professionals trying to survive this pandemic, very much like dishonesty.

Unlike during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic, the current upsurge of suffering isn’t one that humanity has to go through. People are choosing it. And intent matters. Intent is the difference between a child who goes hungry because their parent can’t afford dinner and the one who goes hungry because their parent won’t buy them dinner. Having the ability to provide relief but not do so is cruel. To many medical providers working today, the rejection of lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines feels like a giant “Fuck you” from 29 percent of American adults. We will keep providing the best care possible, but they are making our job much harder.

Not all health-care workers agree, of course. Plenty of hospital workers remain unvaccinated, and some have even staged protests against hospital-wide vaccine mandates. But most of us got vaccinated, and we’ll go to work tomorrow and the next day, no matter what. We will start IVs and give medicines and intubate patients no matter what bumper sticker is on their car. We are holding up our end of a bargain with society. But is society fulfilling its end?

The pandemic has taken away so much: millions of jobs, more than a year of education for tens of millions of children, more than 600,000 American lives. Amid this new, largely preventable wave of infections, some health-care providers are losing something else: the belief that all of us can come together as a people to solve a problem. Doing the work of curing human bodies is harder when some of one’s faith in humanity is lost.

What comes next? Future waves of COVID-19, probably; a widespread return to masking, perhaps; vaccine mandates in some limited settings, eventually. With time and common sense, the United States may get to a point at which infections subside. But it may not. I would argue that even if we do, Americans will have wasted time, energy, and lives. A year ago, we worried about dwindling N95-mask supplies and a limited ventilator inventory. Now we are burning through our most irreplaceable health-care resource: hope.

3 Likes

The Washington Post: Our constitutional crisis is already here

"

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation.”

— James Madison

The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves. The warning signs may be obscured by the distractions of politics, the pandemic, the economy and global crises, and by wishful thinking and denial. But about these things there should be no doubt:

First, Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president in 2024. The hope and expectation that he would fade in visibility and influence have been delusional. He enjoys mammoth leads in the polls; he is building a massive campaign war chest; and at this moment the Democratic ticket looks vulnerable. Barring health problems, he is running.

Second, Trump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. Trump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way. Some Republican candidates have already begun preparing to declare fraud in 2022, just as Larry Elder tried meekly to do in the California recall contest.

Meanwhile, the amateurish “stop the steal” efforts of 2020 have given way to an organized nationwide campaign to ensure that Trump and his supporters will have the control over state and local election officials that they lacked in 2020. Those recalcitrant Republican state officials who effectively saved the country from calamity by refusing to falsely declare fraud or to “find” more votes for Trump are being systematically removed or hounded from office. Republican legislatures are giving themselves greater control over the election certification process. As of this spring, Republicans have proposed or passed measures in at least 16 states that would shift certain election authorities from the purview of the governor, secretary of state or other executive-branch officers to the legislature. An Arizona bill flatly states that the legislature may “revoke the secretary of state’s issuance or certification of a presidential elector’s certificate of election” by a simple majority vote. Some state legislatures seek to impose criminal penalties on local election officials alleged to have committed “technical infractions,” including obstructing the view of poll watchers.

The stage is thus being set for chaos. Imagine weeks of competing mass protests across multiple states as lawmakers from both parties claim victory and charge the other with unconstitutional efforts to take power. Partisans on both sides are likely to be better armed and more willing to inflict harm than they were in 2020. Would governors call out the National Guard? Would President Biden nationalize the Guard and place it under his control, invoke the Insurrection Act, and send troops into Pennsylvania or Texas or Wisconsin to quell violent protests? Deploying federal power in the states would be decried as tyranny. Biden would find himself where other presidents have been — where Andrew Jackson was during the nullification crisis, or where Abraham Lincoln was after the South seceded — navigating without rules or precedents, making his own judgments about what constitutional powers he does and doesn’t have.

Today’s arguments over the filibuster will seem quaint in three years if the American political system enters a crisis for which the Constitution offers no remedy.

Most Americans — and all but a handful of politicians — have refused to take this possibility seriously enough to try to prevent it. As has so often been the case in other countries where fascist leaders arise, their would-be opponents are paralyzed in confusion and amazement at this charismatic authoritarian. They have followed the standard model of appeasement, which always begins with underestimation. The political and intellectual establishments in both parties have been underestimating Trump since he emerged on the scene in 2015. They underestimated the extent of his popularity and the strength of his hold on his followers; they underestimated his ability to take control of the Republican Party; and then they underestimated how far he was willing to go to retain power. The fact that he failed to overturn the 2020 election has reassured many that the American system remains secure, though it easily could have gone the other way — if Biden had not been safely ahead in all four states where the vote was close; if Trump had been more competent and more in control of the decision-makers in his administration, Congress and the states. As it was, Trump came close to bringing off a coup earlier this year. All that prevented it was a handful of state officials with notable courage and integrity, and the reluctance of two attorneys general and a vice president to obey orders they deemed inappropriate.

These were not the checks and balances the Framers had in mind when they designed the Constitution, of course, but Trump has exposed the inadequacy of those protections. The Founders did not foresee the Trump phenomenon, in part because they did not foresee national parties. They anticipated the threat of a demagogue, but not of a national cult of personality. They assumed that the new republic’s vast expanse and the historic divisions among the 13 fiercely independent states would pose insuperable barriers to national movements based on party or personality. “Petty” demagogues might sway their own states, where they were known and had influence, but not the whole nation with its diverse populations and divergent interests.

Such checks and balances as the Framers put in place, therefore, depended on the separation of the three branches of government, each of which, they believed, would zealously guard its own power and prerogatives. The Framers did not establish safeguards against the possibility that national-party solidarity would transcend state boundaries because they did not imagine such a thing was possible. Nor did they foresee that members of Congress, and perhaps members of the judicial branch, too, would refuse to check the power of a president from their own party.

In recent decades, however, party loyalty has superseded branch loyalty, and never more so than in the Trump era. As the two Trump impeachments showed, if members of Congress are willing to defend or ignore the president’s actions simply because he is their party leader, then conviction and removal become all but impossible. In such circumstances, the Framers left no other check against usurpation by the executive — except (small-r) republican virtue.

Critics and supporters alike have consistently failed to recognize what a unique figure Trump is in American history. Because his followers share fundamentally conservative views, many see Trump as merely the continuation, and perhaps the logical culmination, of the Reagan Revolution. This is a mistake: Although most Trump supporters are or have become Republicans, they hold a set of beliefs that were not necessarily shared by all Republicans. Some Trump supporters are former Democrats and independents. In fact, the passions that animate the Trump movement are as old as the republic and have found a home in both parties at one time or another.

Suspicion of and hostility toward the federal government; racial hatred and fear; a concern that modern, secular society undermines religion and traditional morality; economic anxiety in an age of rapid technological change; class tensions, with subtle condescension on one side and resentment on the other; distrust of the broader world, especially Europe, and its insidious influence in subverting American freedom — such views and attitudes have been part of the fabric of U.S. politics since the anti-Federalists, the Whiskey Rebellion and Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic Party was the home of white supremacists until they jumped to George Wallace in 1968 and later to the Republicans. Liberals and Democrats in particular need to distinguish between their ongoing battle with Republican policies and the challenge posed by Trump and his followers. One can be fought through the processes of the constitutional system; the other is an assault on the Constitution itself.

What makes the Trump movement historically unique is not its passions and paranoias. It is the fact that for millions of Americans, Trump himself is the response to their fears and resentments. This is a stronger bond between leader and followers than anything seen before in U.S. political movements. Although the Founders feared the rise of a king or a Caesar, for two centuries Americans proved relatively immune to unwavering hero-worship of politicians. Their men on horseback — Theodore Roosevelt, Grant, even Washington — were not regarded as infallible. This was true of great populist leaders as well. William Jennings Bryan a century ago was venerated because he advanced certain ideas and policies, but he did not enjoy unquestioning loyalty from his followers. Even Reagan was criticized by conservatives for selling out conservative principles, for deficit spending, for his equivocal stance on abortion, for being “soft” on the Soviet Union.

Trump is different, which is one reason the political system has struggled to understand, much less contain, him. The American liberal worldview tends to search for material and economic explanations for everything, and no doubt a good number of Trump supporters have grounds to complain about their lot in life. But their bond with Trump has little to do with economics or other material concerns. They believe the U.S. government and society have been captured by socialists, minority groups and sexual deviants. They see the Republican Party establishment as corrupt and weak — “losers,” to use Trump’s word, unable to challenge the reigning liberal hegemony. They view Trump as strong and defiant, willing to take on the establishment, Democrats, RINOs, liberal media, antifa, the Squad, Big Tech and the “Mitch McConnell Republicans.” His charismatic leadership has given millions of Americans a feeling of purpose and empowerment, a new sense of identity. While Trump’s critics see him as too narcissistic to be any kind of leader, his supporters admire his unapologetic, militant selfishness. Unlike establishment Republicans, Trump speaks without embarrassment on behalf of an aggrieved segment of Americans, not exclusively White, who feel they have been taking it on the chin for too long. And that is all he needs to do.

There was a time when political analysts wondered what would happen when Trump failed to “deliver” for his constituents. But the most important thing Trump delivers is himself. His egomania is part of his appeal. In his professed victimization by the media and the “elites,” his followers see their own victimization. That is why attacks on Trump by the elites only strengthen his bond with his followers. That is why millions of Trump supporters have even been willing to risk death as part of their show of solidarity: When Trump’s enemies cited his mishandling of the pandemic to discredit him, their answer was to reject the pandemic. One Trump supporter didn’t go to the hospital after developing covid-19 symptoms because he didn’t want to contribute to the liberal case against Trump. “I’m not going to add to the numbers,” he told a reporter.

Because the Trump movement is less about policies than about Trump himself, it has undermined the normal role of American political parties, which is to absorb new political and ideological movements into the mainstream. Bryan never became president, but some of his populist policies were adopted by both political parties. Sen. Bernie Sanders’s supporters might not have wanted Biden for president, but having lost the nomination battle they could work on getting Biden to pursue their agenda. Liberal democracy requires acceptance of adverse electoral results, a willingness to countenance the temporary rule of those with whom we disagree. As historian Richard Hofstadter observed, it requires that people “endure error in the interest of social peace.” Part of that willingness stems from the belief that the democratic system makes it possible to work, even in opposition, to correct the ruling party’s errors and overreach. Movements based on ideas and policies can also quickly shift their allegiances. Today, the progressives’ flag-bearer might be Sanders, but tomorrow it could be Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or someone else.

For a movement built around a cult of personality, these adjustments are not possible. For Trump supporters, the “error” is that Trump was cheated out of reelection by what he has told them is an oppressive, communist, Democrat regime. While the defeat of a sitting president normally leads to a struggle to claim the party’s mantle, so far no Republican has been able to challenge Trump’s grip on Republican voters: not Sen. Josh Hawley, not Sen. Tom Cotton, not Tucker Carlson, not Gov. Ron DeSantis. It is still all about Trump. The fact that he is not in office means that the United States is “a territory controlled by enemy tribes,” writes one conservative intellectual. The government, as one Trump supporter put it, “is monopolized by a Regime that believes [Trump voters] are beneath representation, and will observe no limits to keep them [from] getting it." If so, the intellectual posits, what choice do they have but to view the government as the enemy and to become “united and armed to take care of themselves as they think best”?

The Trump movement might not have begun as an insurrection, but it became one after its leader claimed he had been cheated out of reelection. For Trump supporters, the events of Jan. 6 were not an embarrassing debacle but a patriotic effort to save the nation, by violent action if necessary. As one 56-year-old Michigan woman explained: “We weren’t there to steal things. We weren’t there to do damage. We were just there to overthrow the government.”

The banal normalcy of the great majority of Trump’s supporters, including those who went to the Capitol on Jan. 6, has befuddled many observers. Although private militia groups and white supremacists played a part in the attack, 90 percent of those arrested or charged had no ties to such groups. The majority were middle-class and middle-aged; 40 percent were business owners or white-collar workers. They came mostly from purple, not red, counties.

Most Trump supporters are good parents, good neighbors and solid members of their communities. Their bigotry, for the most part, is typical white American bigotry, perhaps with an added measure of resentment and a less filtered mode of expression since Trump arrived on the scene. But these are normal people in the sense that they think and act as people have for centuries. They put their trust in family, tribe, religion and race. Although jealous in defense of their own rights and freedoms, they are less concerned about the rights and freedoms of those who are not like them. That, too, is not unusual. What is unnatural is to value the rights of others who are unlike you as much as you value your own.

As it happens, however, that is what the American experiment in republican democracy requires. It is what the Framers meant by “republican virtue,” a love of freedom not only for oneself but also as an abstract, universal good; a love of self-government as an ideal; a commitment to abide by the laws passed by legitimate democratic processes; and a healthy fear of and vigilance against tyranny of any kind. Even James Madison, who framed the Constitution on the assumption that people would always pursue their selfish interests, nevertheless argued that it was “chimerical” to believe that any form of government could “secure liberty and happiness without any virtue in the people.” Al Gore and his supporters displayed republican virtue when they abided by the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2000 despite the partisan nature of the justices’ decision. (Whether the court itself displayed republican virtue is another question.)

The events of Jan. 6, on the other hand, proved that Trump and his most die-hard supporters are prepared to defy constitutional and democratic norms, just as revolutionary movements have in the past. While it might be shocking to learn that normal, decent Americans can support a violent assault on the Capitol, it shows that Americans as a people are not as exceptional as their founding principles and institutions. Europeans who joined fascist movements in the 1920s and 1930s were also from the middle classes. No doubt many of them were good parents and neighbors, too. People do things as part of a mass movement that they would not do as individuals, especially if they are convinced that others are out to destroy their way of life.

It would be foolish to imagine that the violence of Jan. 6 was an aberration that will not be repeated. Because Trump supporters see those events as a patriotic defense of the nation, there is every reason to expect more such episodes. Trump has returned to the explosive rhetoric of that day, insisting that he won in a “landslide,” that the “radical left Democrat communist party” stole the presidency in the “most corrupt, dishonest, and unfair election in the history of our country” and that they have to give it back. He has targeted for defeat those Republicans who voted for his impeachment — or criticized him for his role in the riot. Already, there have been threats to bomb polling sites, kidnap officials and attack state capitols. “You and your family will be killed very slowly,” the wife of Georgia’s top election official was texted earlier this year. Nor can one assume that the Three Percenters and Oath Keepers would again play a subordinate role when the next riot unfolds. Veterans who assaulted the Capitol told police officers that they had fought for their country before and were fighting for it again. Looking ahead to 2022 and 2024, Trump insists “there is no way they win elections without cheating. There’s no way.” So, if the results come in showing another Democratic victory, Trump’s supporters will know what to do. Just as “generations of patriots” gave “their sweat, their blood and even their very lives” to build America, Trump tells them, so today “we have no choice. We have to fight” to restore “our American birthright.”

Where does the Republican Party stand in all this? The party gave birth to and nurtured this movement; it bears full responsibility for establishing the conditions in which Trump could capture the loyalty of 90 percent of Republican voters. Republican leaders were more than happy to ride Trump’s coattails if it meant getting paid off with hundreds of conservative court appointments, including three Supreme Court justices; tax cuts; immigration restrictions; and deep reductions in regulations on business. Yet Trump’s triumph also had elements of a hostile takeover. The movement’s passion was for Trump, not the party. GOP primary voters chose Trump over the various flavors of establishment Republicanism (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio), and after Trump’s election they continued to regard establishment Republicans as enemies. Longtime party heroes like Paul Ryan were cast into oblivion for disparaging Trump. Even staunch supporters such as Jeff Sessions eventually became villains when they would not do as Trump demanded. Those who survived had a difficult balancing act: to use Trump’s appeal to pass the Republican agenda while also controlling Trump’s excesses, which they worried could ultimately threaten the party’s interests.

That plan seemed plausible in 2017. Unlike other insurgent leaders, Trump had not spent time in the political wilderness building a party and surrounding himself with loyalists. He had to choose from an existing pool of Republican officials, who varied in their willingness to do his bidding. The GOP establishment hoped that the presence of “adults” would restrain him, protecting their traditional agenda and, in their view, the country’s interests, from his worst instincts.

This was a miscalculation. Trump’s grip on his supporters left no room for an alternative power center in the party. One by one, the “adults” resigned or were run off. The dissent and contrary opinions that exist in every party — the Northeast moderate Republicans in Reagan’s day; the progressives in today’s Democratic Party — disappeared from Trump’s Republican Party. The only real issue was Trump himself, and on that there could be no dissent. Those who disapproved of Trump could either keep silent or leave.

The takeover extended beyond the level of political leadership. Modern political parties are an ecosystem of interest groups, lobby organizations, job seekers, campaign donors and intellectuals. All have a stake in the party’s viability; all ultimately depend on being roughly aligned with wherever the party is at a given moment; and so all had to make their peace with Trump, too. Conservative publications that once opposed him as unfit for the presidency had to reverse course or lose readership and funding. Pundits had to adjust to the demands of their pro-Trump audiences — and were rewarded handsomely when they did. Donors who had opposed Trump during the primaries fell into line, if only to preserve some influence on the issues that mattered to them. Advocacy organizations that had previously seen their role as holding the Republican Party to certain principles, and thus often dissented from the party leadership, either became advocates for Trump or lost clout.

It was no surprise that elected officials feared taking on the Trump movement and that Republican job seekers either kept silent about their views or made show-trial-like apologies for past criticism. Ambition is a powerful antidote to moral qualms. More revealing was the behavior of Republican elder statesmen, former secretaries of state in their 80s or 90s who had no further ambitions for high office and seemingly nothing to lose by speaking out. Despite their known abhorrence of everything Trump stood for, these old lions refused to criticize him. They were unwilling to come out against a Republican Party to which they had devoted their professional lives, even when the party was led by someone they detested. Whatever they thought about Trump, moreover, Republican elders disliked Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats more. Again, this is not so unusual. German conservatives accommodated Adolf Hitler in large part because they opposed the socialists more than they opposed the Nazis, who, after all, shared many of their basic prejudices. As for conservative intellectuals, even those who had spent years arguing that Woodrow Wilson was a tyrant because he created the Federal Reserve and supported child labor laws seemed to have no concerns about whether Trump was a would-be despot. They not only came to Trump’s defense but fashioned political doctrines to justify his rule, filling in the wide gaps of his nonexistent ideology with an appeal to “conservative nationalism” and conservative populism. Perhaps American conservatism was never comfortable with the American experiment in liberal democracy, but certainly since Trump took over their party, many conservatives have revealed a hostility to core American beliefs.

Where does the Republican Party stand in all this? The party gave birth to and nurtured this movement; it bears full responsibility for establishing the conditions in which Trump could capture the loyalty of 90 percent of Republican voters. Republican leaders were more than happy to ride Trump’s coattails if it meant getting paid off with hundreds of conservative court appointments, including three Supreme Court justices; tax cuts; immigration restrictions; and deep reductions in regulations on business. Yet Trump’s triumph also had elements of a hostile takeover. The movement’s passion was for Trump, not the party. GOP primary voters chose Trump over the various flavors of establishment Republicanism (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio), and after Trump’s election they continued to regard establishment Republicans as enemies. Longtime party heroes like Paul Ryan were cast into oblivion for disparaging Trump. Even staunch supporters such as Jeff Sessions eventually became villains when they would not do as Trump demanded. Those who survived had a difficult balancing act: to use Trump’s appeal to pass the Republican agenda while also controlling Trump’s excesses, which they worried could ultimately threaten the party’s interests.

That plan seemed plausible in 2017. Unlike other insurgent leaders, Trump had not spent time in the political wilderness building a party and surrounding himself with loyalists. He had to choose from an existing pool of Republican officials, who varied in their willingness to do his bidding. The GOP establishment hoped that the presence of “adults” would restrain him, protecting their traditional agenda and, in their view, the country’s interests, from his worst instincts.

This was a miscalculation. Trump’s grip on his supporters left no room for an alternative power center in the party. One by one, the “adults” resigned or were run off. The dissent and contrary opinions that exist in every party — the Northeast moderate Republicans in Reagan’s day; the progressives in today’s Democratic Party — disappeared from Trump’s Republican Party. The only real issue was Trump himself, and on that there could be no dissent. Those who disapproved of Trump could either keep silent or leave.

The takeover extended beyond the level of political leadership. Modern political parties are an ecosystem of interest groups, lobby organizations, job seekers, campaign donors and intellectuals. All have a stake in the party’s viability; all ultimately depend on being roughly aligned with wherever the party is at a given moment; and so all had to make their peace with Trump, too. Conservative publications that once opposed him as unfit for the presidency had to reverse course or lose readership and funding. Pundits had to adjust to the demands of their pro-Trump audiences — and were rewarded handsomely when they did. Donors who had opposed Trump during the primaries fell into line, if only to preserve some influence on the issues that mattered to them. Advocacy organizations that had previously seen their role as holding the Republican Party to certain principles, and thus often dissented from the party leadership, either became advocates for Trump or lost clout.

It was no surprise that elected officials feared taking on the Trump movement and that Republican job seekers either kept silent about their views or made show-trial-like apologies for past criticism. Ambition is a powerful antidote to moral qualms. More revealing was the behavior of Republican elder statesmen, former secretaries of state in their 80s or 90s who had no further ambitions for high office and seemingly nothing to lose by speaking out. Despite their known abhorrence of everything Trump stood for, these old lions refused to criticize him. They were unwilling to come out against a Republican Party to which they had devoted their professional lives, even when the party was led by someone they detested. Whatever they thought about Trump, moreover, Republican elders disliked Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats more. Again, this is not so unusual. German conservatives accommodated Adolf Hitler in large part because they opposed the socialists more than they opposed the Nazis, who, after all, shared many of their basic prejudices. As for conservative intellectuals, even those who had spent years arguing that Woodrow Wilson was a tyrant because he created the Federal Reserve and supported child labor laws seemed to have no concerns about whether Trump was a would-be despot. They not only came to Trump’s defense but fashioned political doctrines to justify his rule, filling in the wide gaps of his nonexistent ideology with an appeal to “conservative nationalism” and conservative populism. Perhaps American conservatism was never comfortable with the American experiment in liberal democracy, but certainly since Trump took over their party, many conservatives have revealed a hostility to core American beliefs.

Today, we are in a time of hope and illusion. The same people who said that Trump wouldn’t try to overturn the last election now say we have nothing to worry about with the next one. Republicans have been playing this game for five years, first pooh-poohing concerns about Trump’s intentions, or about the likelihood of their being realized, and then going silent, or worse, when what they insisted was improbable came to pass. These days, even the anti-Trump media constantly looks for signs that Trump’s influence might be fading and that drastic measures might not be necessary.

The world will look very different in 14 months if, as seems likely, the Republican zombie party wins control of the House. At that point, with the political winds clearly blowing in his favor, Trump is all but certain to announce his candidacy, and social media constraints on his speech are likely to be lifted, since Facebook and Twitter would have a hard time justifying censoring his campaign. With his megaphone back, Trump would once again dominate news coverage, as outlets prove unable to resist covering him around the clock if only for financial reasons.

But this time, Trump would have advantages that he lacked in 2016 and 2020, including more loyal officials in state and local governments; the Republicans in Congress; and the backing of GOP donors, think tanks and journals of opinion. And he will have the Trump movement, including many who are armed and ready to be activated, again. Who is going to stop him then? On its current trajectory, the 2024 Republican Party will make the 2020 Republican Party seem positively defiant.

Those who criticize Biden and the Democrats for not doing enough to prevent this disaster are not being fair. There is not much they can do without Republican cooperation, especially if they lose control of either chamber in 2022. It has become fashionable to write off any possibility that a handful of Republicans might rise up to save the day. This preemptive capitulation has certainly served well those Republicans who might otherwise be held to account for their cowardice. How nice for them that everyone has decided to focus fire on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin.

Yet it is largely upon these Republicans that the fate of the republic rests.

Seven Republican senators voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection and attempting to overturn a free and fair election: Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Patrick J. Toomey. It was a brave vote, a display of republican virtue, especially for the five who are not retiring in 2022. All have faced angry backlashes — Romney was booed and called a traitor at the Utah Republican convention; Burr and Cassidy were unanimously censured by their state parties. Yet as much credit as they deserve for taking this stand, it was almost entirely symbolic. When it comes to concrete action that might prevent a debacle in 2024, they have balked.

Specifically, they have refused to work with Democrats to pass legislation limiting state legislatures’ ability to overturn the results of future elections, to ensure that the federal government continues to have some say when states try to limit voting rights, to provide federal protection to state and local election workers who face threats, and in general to make clear to the nation that a bipartisan majority in the Senate opposes the subversion of the popular will. Why?

It can’t be because they think they have a future in a Trump-dominated party. Even if they manage to get reelected, what kind of government would they be serving in? They can’t be under any illusion about what a second Trump term would mean. Trump’s disdain for the rule of law is clear. His exoneration from the charges leveled in his impeachment trials — the only official, legal response to his actions — practically ensures that he would wield power even more aggressively. His experience with unreliable subordinates in his first term is likely to guide personnel decisions in a second. Only total loyalists would serve at the head of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Pentagon. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs will not be someone likely to place his or her own judgment above that of their civilian commander in chief. Nor would a Republican Senate fail to confirm Trump loyalists. In such a world, with Trump and his lieutenants in charge of all the levers of state power, including its growing capacity for surveillance, opposing Trump would become increasingly risky for Republicans and Democrats alike. A Trump victory is likely to mean at least the temporary suspension of American democracy as we have known it.

We are already in a constitutional crisis. The destruction of democracy might not come until November 2024, but critical steps in that direction are happening now. In a little more than a year, it may become impossible to pass legislation to protect the electoral process in 2024. Now it is impossible only because anti-Trump Republicans, and even some Democrats, refuse to tinker with the filibuster. It is impossible because, despite all that has happened, some people still wish to be good Republicans even as they oppose Trump. These decisions will not wear well as the nation tumbles into full-blown crisis.

It is not impossible for politicians to make such a leap. The Republican Party itself was formed in the 1850s by politicians who abandoned their previous party — former Whigs, former Democrats and former members of the Liberty and Free Soil parties. While Whig and Democratic party stalwarts such as Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas juggled and compromised, doing their best to ensure that the issue of slavery did not destroy their great parties, others decided that the parties had become an obstacle to justice and a threat to the nation’s continued viability.

Romney & Co. don’t have to abandon their party. They can fashion themselves as Constitutional Republicans who, in the present emergency, are willing to form a national unity coalition in the Senate for the sole purpose of saving the republic. Their cooperation with Democrats could be strictly limited to matters relating to the Constitution and elections. Or they might strive for a temporary governing consensus on a host of critical issues: government spending, defense, immigration and even the persistent covid-19 pandemic, effectively setting aside the usual battles to focus on the more vital and immediate need to preserve the United States.

It takes two, of course, to form a national unity coalition, and Democrats can make it harder or easier for anti-Trump Republicans to join. Some profess to see no distinction between the threat posed by Trump and the threat posed by the GOP. They prefer to use Trump as a weapon in the ongoing political battle, and not only as a way of discrediting and defeating today’s Republican Party but to paint all GOP policies for the past 30 years as nothing more than precursors to Trumpism. Although today’s Trump-controlled Republican Party does need to be fought and defeated, this kind of opportunistic partisanship and conspiracy-mongering, in addition to being bad history, is no cure for what ails the nation.

Senate Democrats were wise to cut down their once-massive voting rights wish list and get behind the smaller compromise measure unveiled last week by Manchin and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. But they have yet to attract any votes from their Republican colleagues for the measure. Heading into the next election, it is vital to protect election workers, same-day registration and early voting. It will also still be necessary to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which directly addresses the state legislatures’ electoral power grab. Other battles — such as making Election Day a federal holiday and banning partisan gerrymandering — might better be postponed. Efforts to prevent a debacle in 2024 cannot. Democrats need to give anti-Trump Republicans a chance to do the right thing.

One wonders whether modern American politicians, in either party, have it in them to make such bold moves, whether they have the insight to see where events are going and the courage to do whatever is necessary to save the democratic system. If that means political suicide for this handful of Republicans, wouldn’t it be better to go out fighting for democracy than to slink off quietly into the night?

4 Likes

Posting this as it is hugely pertinent today as your government seeks to pass financial legislation but is being stymied by one or two individuals who could be doing better.

Financial records detailed by reporter Alex Kotch for the Center for Media and Democracy and published in the Guardian show that Manchin makes roughly half a million dollars a year in dividends from millions of dollars of coal company stock he owns. The stock is held in Enersystems, Inc, a company Manchin started in 1988 and later gave to his son, Joseph, to run.

4 Likes

Kagan’s essay is really a must read. Spread the word please!

4 Likes

This is a really interesting article on the satirical reaction of Gen Z against misinformation and disinformation.

Birds Aren’t Real, or Are They? Inside a Gen Z Conspiracy Theory.

Peter McIndoe, the 23-year-old creator of the viral Birds Aren’t Real movement, is ready to reveal what the effort is really about.

In Pittsburgh, Memphis and Los Angeles, massive billboards recently popped up declaring, “Birds Aren’t Real.”

On Instagram and TikTok, Birds Aren’t Real accounts have racked up hundreds of thousands of followers, and YouTube videos about it have gone viral.

Last month, Birds Aren’t Real adherents even protested outside Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco to demand that the company change its bird logo.

The events were all connected by a Gen Z-fueled conspiracy theory, which posits that birds don’t exist and are really drone replicas installed by the U.S. government to spy on Americans. Hundreds of thousands of young people have joined the movement, wearing Birds Aren’t Real T-shirts, swarming rallies and spreading the slogan.

It might smack of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by an elite cabal of child-trafficking Democrats. Except that the creator of Birds Aren’t Real and the movement’s followers are in on a joke: They know that birds are, in fact, real and that their theory is made up.

What Birds Aren’t Real truly is, they say, is a parody social movement with a purpose. In a post-truth world dominated by online conspiracy theories, young people have coalesced around the effort to thumb their nose at, fight and poke fun at misinformation. It’s Gen Z’s attempt to upend the rabbit hole with absurdism.

“It’s a way to combat troubles in the world that you don’t really have other ways of combating,” said Claire Chronis, 22, a Birds Aren’t Real organizer in Pittsburgh. “My favorite way to describe the organization is fighting lunacy with lunacy.”

At the center of the movement is Peter McIndoe, 23, a floppy-haired college dropout in Memphis who created Birds Aren’t Real on a whim in 2017. For years, he stayed in character as the conspiracy theory’s chief believer, commanding acolytes to rage against those who challenged his dogma. But now, Mr. McIndoe said in an interview, he is ready to reveal the parody lest people think birds really are drones.

“Dealing in the world of misinformation for the past few years, we’ve been really conscious of the line we walk,” he said. “The idea is meant to be so preposterous, but we make sure nothing we’re saying is too realistic. That’s a consideration with coming out of character.”

Most Birds Aren’t Real members, many of whom are part of an on-the-ground activism network called the Bird Brigade, grew up in a world overrun with misinformation. Some have relatives who have fallen victim to conspiracy theories. So for members of Gen Z, the movement has become a way to collectively grapple with those experiences. By cosplaying conspiracy theorists, they have found community and kinship, Mr. McIndoe said.

“Birds Aren’t Real is not a shallow satire of conspiracies from the outside. It is from the deep inside,” he said. “A lot of people in our generation feel the lunacy in all this, and Birds Aren’t Real has been a way for people to process that.”

Cameron Kasky, 21, an activist from Parkland, Fla., who helped organize the March for Our Lives student protest against gun violence in 2018 and is involved in Birds Aren’t Real, said the parody “makes you stop for a second and laugh. In a uniquely bleak time to come of age, it doesn’t hurt to have something to laugh about together.”

Mr. McIndoe, too, marinated in conspiracies. For his first 18 years, he grew up in a deeply conservative and religious community with seven siblings outside Cincinnati, then in rural Arkansas. He was home-schooled, taught that “evolution was a massive brainwashing plan by the Democrats and Obama was the Antichrist,” he said.

He read books like “Remote Control,” about what it said were hidden anti-Christianity messages from Hollywood. In high school, social media offered a gateway to mainstream culture. Mr. McIndoe began watching Philip DeFranco and other popular YouTubers who talked about current events and pop culture, and went on Reddit to find new viewpoints.

“I was raised by the internet, because that’s where I ended up finding a lot of my actual real-world education, through documentaries and YouTube,” Mr. McIndoe said. “My whole understanding of the world was formed by the internet.”

By the time Mr. McIndoe left home for the University of Arkansas in 2016, he said, he realized he wasn’t the only young person forced to straddle multiple realities.

Then in January 2017, Mr. McIndoe traveled to Memphis to visit friends. Donald J. Trump had just been sworn in as president, and there was a women’s march downtown. Pro-Trump counterprotesters were also there. When Mr. McIndoe saw them, he said, he ripped a poster off a wall, flipped it over and wrote three random words: “Birds Aren’t Real.”

“It was a spontaneous joke, but it was a reflection of the absurdity everyone was feeling,” he said.

Mr. McIndoe then walked around and improvised the Birds Aren’t Real conspiracy lore. He said he was part of a greater movement that believed that birds had been replaced with surveillance drones and that the cover up began in the 1970s. Unbeknown to him, he was filmed and the video posted on Facebook. It went viral, especially among teenagers in the South.

In Memphis, “Birds Aren’t Real” graffiti soon showed up. Photos of the phrase’s being scrawled on chalkboards and the walls of local high schools surfaced. People made “Birds Aren’t Real” stickers.

Mr. McIndoe decided to lean into Birds Aren’t Real. “I started embodying the character and building out the world this character belonged to,” he said. He and Connor Gaydos, a friend, wrote a false history of the movement, concocted elaborate theories and produced fake documents and evidence to support his wild claims.

“It basically became an experiment in misinformation,” Mr. McIndoe said. “We were able to construct an entirely fictional world that was reported on as fact by local media and questioned by members of the public.”

Mr. Gaydos added, “If anyone believes birds aren’t real, we’re the last of their concerns, because then there’s probably no conspiracy they don’t believe.”

In 2018, Mr. McIndoe dropped out of college and moved to Memphis. To build Birds Aren’t Real further, he created a flyer that shot to the top of Reddit. He hired an actor to portray a former C.I.A. agent who confessed to working on bird drone surveillance; the video has more than 20 million views on TikTok. He also hired actors to represent adult bird truthers in videos that spread all over Instagram.

That same year, Mr. McIndoe began selling Birds Aren’t Real merchandise. The money, totaling several thousand dollars a month, helps Mr. McIndoe and Mr. Gaydos cover their living expenses.

“All the money from our merch lineup goes into making sure me and Connor can do this full time,” Mr. McIndoe said. “We also put the money into the billboards, flying out members of the Bird Brigade to rallies. None of the proceeds go to anything harmful.”

To adults with concerns about Mr. McIndoe’s tactics, researchers said any harms were most likely minimal.

“You have to weigh the potential negative effects with any of this stuff, but in this case it is so extremely small,” said Joshua Citarella, an independent researcher who studies internet culture and online radicalization in youth. “Allowing people to engage in collaborative world building is therapeutic because it lets them disarm conspiracism and engage in a safe way.”

Mr. McIndoe said he kept the concerns top of mind. “Everything we’ve done with Birds Aren’t Real is made to make sure it doesn’t tip into where it could have a negative end result on the world,” he said. “It’s a safe space for people to come together and process the conspiracy takeover of America. It’s a way to laugh at the madness rather than be overcome by it.”

The effort has been cathartic for young people including Heitho Shipp, 22, a Pittsburgh resident.

“Most conspiracy theories are fueled by hate or distrust or one powerful leader, but this is about finding an outlet for our pain,” she said. She added that the movement was “more about media literacy.”

Birds Aren’t Real members have also become a political force. Many often join up with counterprotesters and actual conspiracy theorists to de-escalate tensions and delegitimize the people they are marching alongside with irreverent chants.

In September, shortly after a restrictive new abortion law went into effect in Texas, Birds Aren’t Real members showed up at a protest held by anti-abortion activists at the University of Cincinnati. Supporters of the new law “had signs with very graphic imagery and were very aggressive in condemning people,” Mr. McIndoe said. “It led to arguments.”

But the Bird Brigade began chanting, “Birds aren’t real.” Their shouts soon overpowered the anti-abortion activists, who left.

Mr. McIndoe now has big plans for 2022. Breaking character is necessary to help Birds Aren’t Real leap to the next level and forswear actual conspiracy theorists, he said. He added that he hoped to collaborate with major content creators and independent media like Channel 5 News, which is aimed at helping people make sense of America’s current state and the internet.

“I have a lot of excitement for what the future of this could be as an actual force for good,” he said. “Yes, we have been intentionally spreading misinformation for the past four years, but it’s with a purpose. It’s about holding up a mirror to America in the internet age.”

4 Likes

The Gospel of Donald Trump Jr.

The former president’s son told a crowd that the teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.”

Donald Trump Jr. is both intensely unappealing and uninteresting. He combines in his person corruption, ineptitude, and banality. He is perpetually aggrieved; obsessed with trolling the left; a crude, one-dimensional figure who has done a remarkably good job of keeping from public view any redeeming qualities he might have.

There’s a case to be made that he’s worth ignoring, except for this: Don Jr. has been his father’s chief emissary to MAGA world; he’s one of the most popular figures in the Republican Party; and he’s influential with Republicans in positions of power. He’s also attuned to what appeals to the base of the GOP. So, from time to time, it is worth paying attention to what he has to say.

Trump spoke at a Turning Point USA gathering on December 19. He displayed seething, nearly pathological resentments; playground insults (he led the crowd in “Let’s Go, Brandon” chants); tough guy/average Joe shtick; and a pulsating sense of aggrieved victimhood and persecution, all of it coming from the elitist, extravagantly rich son of a former president.

But there was one short section of Trump’s speech that I thought was particularly revealing. Relatively early in the speech, he said, “If we get together, they cannot cancel us all. Okay? They won’t. And this will be contrary to a lot of our beliefs because—I’d love not to have to participate in cancel culture. I’d love that it didn’t exist. But as long as it does, folks, we better be playing the same game. Okay? We’ve been playing T-ball for half a century while they’re playing hardball and cheating. Right? We’ve turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference—I understand the mentality— but it’s gotten us nothing. Okay? It’s gotten us nothing while we’ve ceded ground in every major institution in our country.”

Throughout his speech, Don Jr. painted a scenario in which Trump supporters—Americans living in red America—are under relentless attack from a wicked and brutal enemy. He portrayed it as an existential battle between good and evil. One side must prevail; the other must be crushed. This in turn justifies any necessary means to win. And the former president’s son has a message for the tens of millions of evangelicals who form the energized base of the GOP: the scriptures are essentially a manual for suckers. The teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.” It’s worse than that, really; the ethic of Jesus has gotten in the way of successfully prosecuting the culture wars against the left. If the ethic of Jesus encourages sensibilities that might cause people in politics to act a little less brutally, a bit more civilly, with a touch more grace? Then it needs to go.

Decency is for suckers.

Translating the teachings of Jesus into public life, and figuring out how they ought to influence the duties of the state, is a complicated matter. A decade ago, I wrote a book with Michael Gerson, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era , in which we dealt with that issue, among others. But what we heard from Donald Trump Jr. was something very different. He believes, as his father does, that politics should be practiced ruthlessly, mercilessly, and vengefully. The ends justify the means. Norms and guardrails need to be smashed. Morality and lawfulness must always be subordinated to the pursuit of power and self-interest. That is the Trumpian ethic.

The problem is that the Trumpian ethic hasn’t been confined to the Trump family. We saw that not just in the enthusiastic and at times impassioned response of the Turning Point USA crowd to Don Jr.’s speech but nearly every day in the words and actions of Republicans in positions of power. Donald Trump and his oldest son have become evangelists of a different kind.

Their approach hasn’t been embraced by Republicans, of course. There are GOP governors and others in the Republican Party who embody a very different ethic, and for the sake of their party and their country, I hope they gain influence. But it would be naive and irresponsible to pretend that what we have seen since Donald Trump left office is the revivification of ethical standards and demands for moral excellence within the Republican Party.

Liz Cheney voted with President Trump more than 90 percent of the time but is now persona non grata in the GOP because she is willing to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and stand against a violent assault on the Capitol and an effort to overturn a free and fair election. When Liz Cheney is more despised in the party than the crazed Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, Madison Cawthorn, or Donald Trump Jr., you know that the GOP has lost its moral bearings.

I understand that many Americans, including some number of Republicans I know, would rather we move on from the Trump family. But the Trump family and MAGA world won’t let us. And they’re playing for keeps.

3 Likes

Shame Cometh: The Jared Kushner Story

A tale of hubris and disgrace.

“When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.”
—Proverbs 11:2

THE MATRIARCH was a hero of the Jewish resistance. One of the leaders of an improbable escape from the ghetto, she helped tunnel beneath the walls and electrified fences imprisoning the local Jewish population. After crawling through a tunnel longer than two football fields, she lived in the woods for months before joining an underground resistance group that fought the Nazis.

She wound up in Budapest after the liberation. There, she married a Holocaust survivor from the same sliver of Eastern Europe. He took her surname, as her family was wealthier and more prominent: Kushner.

The couple emigrated to America as Sh’erit ha-Pletah —Displaced Persons in Allied occupation zones. They started a new life in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They had three children. They put the horrible past behind them. They looked ahead to the sunshiny future.

The grandfather was a carpenter, a construction worker, and, in time, a real estate developer. Taking advantage of funding through various federal programs, he made it big. The grandfather became one of the so-called “Holocaust builders”—Jewish survivors of the Second World War who amassed vast fortunes in New Jersey real estate development. How better to combat all that destruction than to build?

A heroic Nazi-fighter and a great builder: these were the paternal grandparents.

The father married within the local Orthodox Jewish community. He and his wife had four children: two boys and two girls.

The father became the head of the company the grandfather built. On his watch, the family business became exponentially more successful. A kingdom became an empire. There were 10,000 apartment units, commercial properties, industrial properties, a bank.

The father gave away a lot of money. He endowed Jewish academies and synagogues. He sat on boards. He gave generously to charitable causes, in the U.S. and in Israel: hospitals, universities, religious organizations. Most of all, he donated to political campaigns—for Democrats, mostly.

The father was good at the politics side of the job. He was handsome and debonair. He liked people. He liked publicity. He liked power. He liked having the most powerful people in the world at his beck and call: the President of the United States, the future Prime Minister of Israel, and anyone who was anyone in New Jersey. He was a big wheel in Garden State politics, the sort of character who turns up in television programs about smoke-filled-back-room political intrigue, a kingmaker.

Until it all came crashing down.

The money, the power, the fame and fortune: none of it was enough for the father. He wanted to extend his empire into the Empire State. He wanted to run the Port Authority. He wanted to strongarm the new governor. In a word, he wanted more .

To get more, the father risked everything he and his family had built. He violated federal law, repeatedly. He filed false tax returns. He filed false campaign finance reports. When he discovered that his sister and brother-in-law were cooperating with a federal investigation, he hired a prostitute to “honeypot” his brother-in-law, videotaped the tryst, and sent the tape to his sister. That sleazy and ruthless act—witness tampering, technically—became one of the 18 counts to which he pleaded guilty. He served two years in federal prison, the first 14 months in Alabama.

When the father was released from jail, he was no longer a big wheel in local politics. He was no longer a kingmaker. He could no longer practice law. When he was mentioned now in the newspapers, his name was festooned with unseemly modifiers like disgraced and convicted felon and crook .

This was the father.

The son was tall and quiet, like his mother. He was intellectually lazy and not particularly smart, but was always convinced he knew better than anyone else, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

He got ho-hum grades in high school. His SAT tests were subpar. He applied to Harvard, but was only accepted after his father donated millions to the school.

He had an unusual college experience. On weekends he flew to Alabama to visit his father in prison. While taking classes, he ran some of the family real estate concerns in Boston. He did not leave a mark at the school. Little about him was memorable.

When he graduated, he went to work for the family real estate business. His big idea was to buy a building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. The cost was staggering: $1.8 billion. The deal closed in 2007, at the height of the boom. The real estate market collapsed, along with the rest of the economy, within months of the ink drying. The building was underwater. The debt service was onerous, threatening to bankrupt the family business. He was willing to do almost anything to prevent that from happening. If the investment failed, if the company failed, that meant that he had failed—that he hadn’t been right. And he was always right.

He married the daughter of an infamous New York personality, a loutish gossip column fixture who was a money launderer for the Russian mob. The family did not approve of her because she was not Jewish. To appease them, she converted—although she kept her last name, just as his grandmother had. He and his wife became a power couple, power brokers in the most powerful city in the world. That seemed to be the point of the marriage. Certainly there was no discernible passion on the part of either party, and plenty of lurid rumors. The wife would later describe their first date as “the best deal we ever made.”

He bought a beloved New York publication, known for its exquisite writing and the salmon color of its newspapers, and gutted it, destroying everything about it that made it special.

Like his father, he was good at networking. He knew lots of influential people: media magnates, heads of state, intelligence operatives, elder statesmen, PR executives, models, actors, politicians, cable news talking heads. Those influential people wielded their influence on his behalf, often in subtle ways. Unlike his father—but like the original Holocaust builders—he preferred to stay in the background. He shied away from publicity. He was a poor public speaker with a reedy, unpleasant speaking voice.

His kid brother married a supermodel, soaked up the good life, enjoyed jet-setting and hobnobbing with celebs in Southern California. Not him. He was more concerned with accruing power. He genuinely enjoyed the company of older men. He learned from them—insofar as he allowed himself to learn.

His father-in-law was running for president, as a Republican. The man was a buffoon, but he was a marketing genius, and he was family. His father-in-law asked him to join the team, despite him being a Democrat. He accepted. Power trumped politics. He took over social media operations. He worked with sophisticated tech companies that specialized in micro-targeting.

Through Henry Kissinger, of all people, he was connected to important players in the Russian government. The Russians wanted to help his father-in-law win the election. He wanted the same thing, and saw no reason why he should refuse the help. He lobbied for his father-in-law to hire as campaign chair a sleazy lobbyist with long ties to Russian intelligence. He met with Russians before his father-in-law’s first foreign policy speech, at a stately Washington hotel. When Russians promised dirt on his father-in-law’s political opponent, he met with them at the building that bore his wife’s family name. He met with Russians again in that same building, covertly, secreting them through a private entrance. At an upscale New York hotel, he met with the head of a sanctioned Russian bank; the Russians later said the meeting pertained to his family business. He proposed a backchannel via the Russian embassy, so he could talk to the Russians without anyone hearing.

It wasn’t limited to Russia. He met with other foreign nationals as well: princes from Saudi Arabia, from the United Arab Emirates. He met with anyone he thought could help his father-in-law’s campaign—or fix the longstanding problem of his company’s onerous debt on his Manhattan building.

None of this was legal.

After his father-in-law won, he took a job as a senior advisor. On the form senior advisors have to fill out to get a security clearance, he made key omissions. So he filled it out a second time. He made more omissions. So he filled it out a third time. He did not get the security clearance, but his father-in-law insisted he be given the job anyway. (Intentionally omitting meetings with foreign nationals on a security clearance form is a felony, but he was never charged.) He was a voracious consumer of the President’s Daily Brief, a document that contained all the highest-level top secret intelligence and national security information.

On the transition team, he and his wife wanted a general who had been fired by the previous president, and who was under FBI investigation for possible seditious activities, to be named national security advisor. His father-in-law took their advice. (The general was forced to leave the position a few months later, after he was caught lying to the FBI, and possibly to the Vice President. The general later pleaded guilty to making false statements.)

Through his PR connections, he was able to receive mostly favorable press, especially in the paper of record. A glowing feature of him ran in a prominent financial magazine, under the subtitle “Boy Wonder.” The press pushed the narrative that he and his wife were the mitigating influences in the White House. They were decent. They were normal. Through his tabloid connections, he was able to turn the gossip rags against the Democrats and also to kill stories that might be damaging to his father-in-law.

When he found out that the FBI was investigating his father-in-law’s campaign for meeting with all those Russians, he suggested to his father-in-law that the FBI director be fired. The FBI director is not popular with the Democrats, he said, because they believe he cost his father-in-law’s rival the election. They will love this, he said. His father-in-law listened, firing the FBI director. The Democrats did not love it. The Democrats thought it was obstruction of justice. The day after the FBI director was fired, the father-in-law met with Russian government officials in the Oval Office.

He was the de facto ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He befriended the Crown Prince, like him a Millennial, unlike him a psychopath. He spent a lot of time with the Crown Prince in Riyadh, so much so that the Crown Prince bragged that he was “in my pocket.” He gave the Crown Prince classified intelligence—information about who in the Saudi royal family was loyal and who was not. (After meeting with him, the Crown Prince initiated a purge of the royal family.) He lobbied for Saudi Arabia to be the first country his father-in-law would visit as president. Other presidents did not visit the Kingdom, because of the grotesque human rights abuses there. He didn’t care. The Saudis had money, lots of money, and he needed money, lots of money. And so his father-in-law made a state visit to the Kingdom.

Later, his buddy the Crown Prince had a dissident journalist murdered, the body hacked in pieces with a bone-saw. It is widely believed that he knew about the threat to this journalist, but did nothing to warn him.

His family was close with the disgustingly corrupt Prime Minister of Israel. They were old family friends. His father-in-law moved the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which did nothing but piss off the Palestinians and thrill Rapture-happy Evangelicals.

He brokered a Middle East peace deal, which was really a business deal between his old family friend and his friends in various royal families—and, of course, him and his father-in-law.

He lobbied for a blockade of Qatar, our strongest Arab ally and the site of our largest military base in the Middle East, in order to secure a new loan for his family’s underwater Fifth Avenue building. In a roundabout way, this worked. The Qataris indirectly bailed out his company. The blockade was ended.

His portfolio was a catalogue of failure. He was tasked with solving the opioid crisis. He did not. He was tasked with ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not. He was tasked with building the wall between the U.S. and Mexico. He did not. He was tasked with managing the stockpile of medicine and PPE. He fucked that up royally—for the American people, at least, if not for his rich cronies. He hoarded the stuff and forced states to bid against each other for it.

During the early days of the pandemic, he set up a shadow task force to devise an appropriate response. When that task force gave him its recommendations—masks, contact tracing, federal coordination of supplies, etc.—he ignored them. The virus, he saw, was hitting the Blue States the hardest. It would help his father-in-law politically, he came to believe, if the pandemic continued to rage in those states. This way, his father-in-law could blame the governors of those states, who were all Democrats, for the escalating public health crisis, avoiding responsibility. So he decided to scuttle the plans given him by his own task force, and let the virus run amok.

At the time, the states hit the hardest by covid-19 were New York, New Jersey, and California. New York: where he lived for years, where most of his friends lived. New Jersey: where he grew up, where his parents lived. California: where his brother lived. He was willing to let the populations of those states—home to his family and friends—get sick and die to help his father-in-law’s re-election prospects.

Again: He was willing to let the populations of those states get sick and die to help his father-in-law’s re-election prospects.

As of this writing, 904,000 Americans have died of covid-19. The unofficial number is well over a million. Most of those deaths could have been prevented, had he and his father-in-law not sabotaged the pandemic response.

The grandson of Holocaust survivors allowed that mass death to happen.

He served in his father-in-law’s administration for four years and was the second-most powerful person in the White House. If he did anything to stop his father-in-law’s racist, sexist, cruel impulses, there is no evidence of it. During the Muslim travel ban, he did nothing. When refugee children were separated from their parents, he did nothing. After Charlottesville, when neo-Nazis paraded through the streets chanting “Jews will not replace us,” he did nothing—even as his father-in-law defended the neo-Nazis. During the Black Lives Matter protests, he did nothing. When his wife suggested they forcibly remove protestors so his father-in-law could get a photo in front of a Black church, he did nothing, and he did nothing as his father-in-law’s toxic rhetoric awakened white nationalist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic sentiment all across the country. He did nothing as Fascists took over the GOP—the same kind of hateful people who, eight decades ago, rounded up Jews like his paternal grandparents and sent them to concentration camps.

He and his wife made over half a billion dollars while working at the White House. That doesn’t count future earnings on connections forged and promises made during his time there—especially during the pandemic, when a lot of federal money went missing. He is now hitting up investors for his new investment capital concern. So far, he’s amassed some $3 billion. How much of this is payment for services rendered? How much of it is blood money?

Why has he not been charged for his many crimes? Who is protecting him, and for what purpose?

How does he live with himself? How does he sleep at night?

In two generations, the family went from escaping from Nazis to doing business with the Nazi bank of choice, from endowing Jewish causes to allying with anti-Semitic white nationalists, and from surviving the Holocaust to authorizing a Blue State Genocide.

This is the real Jared Kushner.

For shame.

4 Likes

An article relevant to the moment?

Most Dictators Self Destruct. Why?

In most cases, democratization has followed an authoritarian ruler’s mistake.

With authoritarian rulers ascendant in many parts of the world, one wonders what must happen for their countries to liberalize. The likes of Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey or Xi Jinping in China are entrenched, experienced and not unpopular — so should their opponents simply resign themselves to an open-ended period of illiberal rule?

According to Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political scientist, that’s not necessarily the case. For a recent paper, he analyzed 218 episodes of democratization between 1800 and 2015 and found they were, with some exceptions (such as Danish King Frederick VII’s voluntary acceptance of a constitution in 1848), the result of authoritarian rulers’ mistakes in seeking to hold on to power. The list of these errors is both a useful handbook for authoritarians and a useful reminder that even the most capable of them are fallible, with disastrous consequences for their regimes.

According to Treisman, deliberate liberalization — whether to forestall a revolution, motivate people to fight a foreign invader, defeat competing elite groups or make a pact with them — only occurred in up to a third of the cases. In the rest, democratization was an accident: As they set off a chain of events, rulers didn’t intend to relinquish power. Some of them — such as Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president — have admitted as much.

Treisman’s list of mistakes is worth citing in full. There are five basic ones:

  • Hubris: An authoritarian ruler underestimates the opposition’s strength and fails to compromise or suppress it before it’s too late. King Louis Philippe of France was deposed in 1848 after, as Treisman puts it, turning “a series of reform banquets into revolution by refusing even mild concessions.” Romanian Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was making a routine speech when he realized he was being overthrown. Indonesian President Muhammad Suharto believed he could get the country under control right up to the moment of his resignation.
  • Needless risk: A ruler calls a vote which he “fails to manipulate sufficiently” (like Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1988, when he lost a plebiscite on whether he should be allowed to stay in power) or starts a war he cannot win (like Leopoldo Galtieri in Argentina with the Falklands conflict of 1982).
  • Slippery slope: That’s Gorbachev’s case: a ruler starts reforms to prop up the regime but ends up undermining it.
  • Trusting a traitor: This is not always a mistake made by the dictator itself, although it was in the case of Francisco Franco in Spain, who chose King Juan Carlos, the dismantler of fascism, as his successor. In Gorbachev’s case, it was the Politburo — the regime’s elite — that picked the wrong man to preserve its power.
  • Counterproductive violence: Not suppressing the opposition when necessary can be a sign of hubris in a dictator, but overreacting is also a grave mistake. The example Treisman gives is Bangladeshi President Hussain Muhammad Ershad, who was forced to resign by an uprising that started after police shot an opposition activist at a rally. But the error was also made by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013, when his riot police descended on a few hundred peacefully protesting students and brutally beat them, setting off the much bigger protests that resulted in Yanukovych’s ouster.

These are all very human errors of judgment. Dictators are people, too, and sometimes they’ll act on imperfect information or erroneous gut feeling. But Treisman makes the point that they may be prone to such errors precisely because they are dictators. They’ll be fooled by polls which people don’t answer sincerely, taken in by their own propaganda (like Malawi ruler Hastings Banda, who called and lost a referendum in 1993 because he’d been impressed by the high turnout at rallies in his support even though people had been forced to attend them). And sometimes they’ll rule for so long that their mental faculties will be less sharp than at the outset.

I have a particular interest in watching Putin for any of the errors on Treisman’s list. So far, it’s as if he’d read the paper before Treisman wrote it. His suppression has been timely and cleverly measured, his election manipulation always sufficient, his temporary successor, Dmitri Medvedev, avoided the liberal slippery slope, and he’s only started wars against much weaker rivals. He helps his regime’s propaganda by treating it as truth, but he doesn’t buy it to the point of losing vigilance. In the 2018 election, he kept his main opponent, Alexei Navalny, out of the race, mindful that modern technology allows a rival to loosen media restrictions – something Treisman notes can lead a hubristic dictator to an electoral loss.

But even Putin, after 17 years in power, is in danger of making a miscalculation one day, perhaps finally misreading the mood of the increasingly cynical Russian public that keeps registering support for him in largely worthless polls. It’s easy to imagine the choleric Erdogan getting into an armed conflict Turkey cannot sustain or using disproportional violence as Turks’ patience with his reprisals wear thin. It’s a possibility, although a remote one, that, after Xi’s power consolidation, the Chinese Communist Party will opt for a more liberal successor and he won’t be able to hold the reins as tightly.

Treisman notes that in 85 percent of the episodes he studied, democratization was preceded by mass unrest. Sooner or later, people tend to get tired of regimes in which they have little say. Then, it only takes a misstep from the one person at the center of such a regime. Dictators often overestimate the external danger to their power, the plots of foreign or exiled enemies. In the final analysis, they are the biggest threat to themselves.

3 Likes

I am sick to death of hearing about the COVID 15 or whatever. 39% of people gained weight?

Well, 35% of people LOST weight, many due to eschewing fast food and restaurants and adopting healthier lifestyles.

I lost 30 lbs. So can we put this myth to bed?

4 Likes