washingtonmonthly--2020-02-17--Christian Nationalists Found the Leader They’ve Been Looking For

Katherine Stewart is the writer who first introduced me to the term “ Christian nationalists ” almost a year ago .
I had previously referred to the group that has shown unwavering support for Trump as “ white evangelicals.
” But that is a bit of a misnomer , primarily because , as we saw with the article in Christianity Today calling for the president ’ s removal from office , there are pockets of white evangelicals who aren ’ t part of the movement .
There are also members of other religious groups that espouse the same beliefs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ General William Barr and Federalist Society President Leonard Leo are major players in the Christian nationalist movement .
Bringing some clarity to the make-up of the Christian nationalist movement is just one of the myths Stewart busts in her upcoming book titled : The Power Worshippers : Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism , set to be released on March 3rd .
Equally important for us to understand is that this movement isn ’ t simply about culture wars .
When it comes to that “ biblical worldview , ” we often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose abortion and LGBT rights .
But as Stewart explains , the movement is actually based on the idea that “ the Bible is very clear about the right answers to the political issues American voters face in the twenty-first century.
” For example , they also believe that the Bible : • opposes public assistance to the poor as a matter of principle—unless the money passes through church coffers ; • opposes environmentalism and , as a matter of theology , denies the science that human contributions to greenhouse gases causes global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both the home and church , with women being submissive to men ; • favors the use of corporal punishment when discipling children ; • favors government deregulation of business and minimal workers rights ; and To illustrate the Christian nationalist commitment to that biblical worldview , Stewart examined the writings and teachings of Ralph Drollinger , the founder of Capitol Ministries , who leads a weekly Bible study in the White House for cabinet secretaries and other officials .
However , those views are also incorporated into churches by groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Cultural Impact Teams ” and arms them with manuals that outline a biblical worldview .
Perhaps that helps explain why a host of uber-wealthy elites have signed on to the Christian nationalist movement and provide funding for the vast network of everything from non-profits to legal advocacy groups that promote their cause .
For me personally , the major myth about Christian nationalists that Stewart busted was to provide some history of where this movement came from .
In this case , I have to disagree with my colleague Martin Longman .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters , he is the apex of decades of work that led up to his election .
Here are just a few of the men who laid the groundwork for where we are today .
Dabney was a Presbyterian minister and theologian who was born in 1820 .
He was an anti-abolitionist , who argued that opposing slavery was “ tantamount to rejecting Christianity.
” After the Civil War , Dabney , who referred to democracy as “ mobocracy , ” took up the cause of his “ oppressed white brethren of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Stewart notes , “ Christian nationalism came of age in the American slave republic ” due to the proslavery theology of men like Dabney , who fused religion with a racialized form of nationalism .
The importance of Dabeny can be seen from the fact that Rushdoony , whose writings provided the core of today ’ s Christian nationalism , considered him a role model .
Two of the themes that are critical for today ’ s Christian nationalists emerged from Dabney and Rushdoony : ( 1 ) the fight against government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ( 2 ) the disdain for democracy in favor of a hierarchy of authoritarianism .
As Stewart wrote : “ the new generation of leaders promoted a theological vision that emphasized the divine origins of the existing order , which invariably involved domination and subordination.
” Weyrich wasn ’ t a particularly religious man .
Instead , he was a Goldwater Republican who was passionate about “ anticommunism , economic libertarianism , and a distrust of the civil rights movement.
” It was Weyrich ’ s genius to meld those commitments with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new radical right .
Initially , Weyrich joined with leaders like Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson , and Bob Jones to rally around the cause of fighting against federal attempts to desegregate their schools .
In that effort , we can see the groundwork that was laid by Dabney and Rushdoony .
That is when , several years after the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Roe v Wade was actually embraced by most conservative Christians , they decided to focus on the issue of abortion .
The rest , as they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important moments of the so-called “ Reagan revolution ” was the fact that he launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia , Mississippi with a dog-whistle shout-out to states rights .
But equally important was the speech the not-so-religious presidential candidate gave at the Reunion Arena in Dallas , Texas to a crowd of 15,000 pastors and religious activists .
With his speech in Mississippi , Reagan secured the support of southern white racists .
But it was his speech in Dallas that married Christian nationalists to his candidacy and forged the bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this day .
Weyrich ’ s vision came to fruition .
In today ’ s political arena , the number of Christian nationalist influencers is too great to capture .
But Stewart suggests that Barton is the “ where ’ s Waldo ” of the movement—showing up everywhere .
Barton got a bachelor ’ s degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University and , until his early 30s , was a math teacher and principal at a Christian high school .
Then he became convinced that the whole idea of the founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation between church and state was a myth .
Here is how Stewart describes Barton ’ s historiography .
Those are some of the historical highlights that led Stewart to this conclusion .
To outsiders , the question often arises about why this religious movement would remain loyal to such an amoral president .
But that fails to take into account the fact that Christian nationalism is “ authoritarian , paranoid , and patriarchal to its core … In Mr. Trump , they have found a man who does not merely serve their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a certain kind of political leadership.
” Reading Stewart ’ s book is certainly enlightening , but it can also be depressing .
She ends , however , on a note that harkens back to Barack Obama ’ s most important speech : the one he gave at the 50th anniversary of the Selma march where he talked about what it means to be an American .
Stewart emphasized the same theme .

Katherine Stewart is the writer who first introduced me to the term “Christian nationalists” almost a year ago. I had previously referred to the group that has shown unwavering support for Trump as “white evangelicals.” But that is a bit of a misnomer, primarily because, as we saw with the article in Christianity Today calling for the president’s removal from office, there are pockets of white evangelicals who aren’t part of the movement. There are also members of other religious groups that espouse the same beliefs. For example, Catholic leaders like Attorney General William Barr and Federalist Society President Leonard Leo are major players in the Christian nationalist movement.
Bringing some clarity to the make-up of the Christian nationalist movement is just one of the myths Stewart busts in her upcoming book titled: The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, set to be released on March 3rd. Equally important for us to understand is that this movement isn’t simply about culture wars.
It is not a social or cultural movement. It is a political movement, and its ultimate goal is power. It does not seek to add another voice to America’s pluralistic democracy but to replace our foundational democratic principles and institutions with a state grounded on a particular version of Christianity answering to what some adherents call a “biblical worldview” that also happens to serve the interests of its plutocratic funders and allied political leaders…This is not a “culture war.” It is a political war over the future of democracy.
When it comes to that “biblical worldview,” we often hear about the fact that Christian nationalists oppose abortion and LGBT rights. But as Stewart explains, the movement is actually based on the idea that “the Bible is very clear about the right answers to the political issues American voters face in the twenty-first century.” For example, they also believe that the Bible:
opposes public assistance to the poor as a matter of principle—unless the money passes through church coffers;
opposes environmentalism and, as a matter of theology, denies the science that human contributions to greenhouse gases causes global warning;
opposes gun regulation;
supports strong national borders;
favors the privatization of schools;
favors a gender hierarchy in both the home and church, with women being submissive to men;
favors the use of corporal punishment when discipling children;
favors government deregulation of business and minimal workers rights; and
favors capitalism and property rights.
To illustrate the Christian nationalist commitment to that biblical worldview, Stewart examined the writings and teachings of Ralph Drollinger, the founder of Capitol Ministries, who leads a weekly Bible study in the White House for cabinet secretaries and other officials. However, those views are also incorporated into churches by groups like the Family Research Council, which promotes “Cultural Impact Teams” and arms them with manuals that outline a biblical worldview.
Perhaps that helps explain why a host of uber-wealthy elites have signed on to the Christian nationalist movement and provide funding for the vast network of everything from non-profits to legal advocacy groups that promote their cause.
For me personally, the major myth about Christian nationalists that Stewart busted was to provide some history of where this movement came from. In this case, I have to disagree with my colleague Martin Longman. Trump hasn’t corrupted his Christian supporters, he is the apex of decades of work that led up to his election. Here are just a few of the men who laid the groundwork for where we are today.
Robert Lewis Dabney
Dabney was a Presbyterian minister and theologian who was born in 1820. He was an anti-abolitionist, who argued that opposing slavery was “tantamount to rejecting Christianity.” After the Civil War, Dabney, who referred to democracy as “mobocracy,” took up the cause of his “oppressed white brethren of Virginia and neighboring states to the south.”
Their oppression consisted in, among other things, having to pay taxes to support a “pretended education to the brats of black paupers.” These unjustly persecuted white people, as Dabney saw it, were also forced to contend with “the atheistic and infidel theories of physical science.”
As Stewart notes, “Christian nationalism came of age in the American slave republic” due to the proslavery theology of men like Dabney, who fused religion with a racialized form of nationalism.
Rousas Rushdoony
The importance of Dabeny can be seen from the fact that Rushdoony, whose writings provided the core of today’s Christian nationalism, considered him a role model.
The views of the theologian who lies at the center of so much influence are not hard to state simply and clearly: Rushdoony advocated a return to “biblical” law in America. The Bible, says Rushdoony, commands Christians to exercise absolute dominion over the earth and all of its inhabitants. Women are destined by God to be subordinate to men; men are destined to be ruled by a spiritual aristocracy of right-thinking, orthodox Christian clerics; and the federal government is an agent of evil. Public education, in Rushdoony’s reading of the Bible, is a threat to civilization, for it “basically trains women to be men,” and represents “primitivism,” “chaos,” and “a vast integration into the void.”
Two of the themes that are critical for today’s Christian nationalists emerged from Dabney and Rushdoony: (1) the fight against government (ie, public) schools, and (2) the disdain for democracy in favor of a hierarchy of authoritarianism. As Stewart wrote: “the new generation of leaders promoted a theological vision that emphasized the divine origins of the existing order, which invariably involved domination and subordination.”
Paul Weyrich
Weyrich wasn’t a particularly religious man. Instead, he was a Goldwater Republican who was passionate about “anticommunism, economic libertarianism, and a distrust of the civil rights movement.” It was Weyrich’s genius to meld those commitments with Christian nationalists in order to form a new radical right.
Initially, Weyrich joined with leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Bob Jones to rally around the cause of fighting against federal attempts to desegregate their schools. In that effort, we can see the groundwork that was laid by Dabney and Rushdoony.
But they had a problem. As Weyrich understood, building a new movement around the burning issue of defending the tax advantages of racist schools wasn’t going to be a viable strategy on the national stage. “Stop the tax on segregation” just wasn’t going to inspire the kind of broad-based conservative counterrevolution that Weyrich envisions. They needed an issue with a more acceptable appeal.
That is when, several years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade was actually embraced by most conservative Christians, they decided to focus on the issue of abortion. The rest, as they say, is history.
One of the most important moments of the so-called “Reagan revolution” was the fact that he launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi with a dog-whistle shout-out to states rights. But equally important was the speech the not-so-religious presidential candidate gave at the Reunion Arena in Dallas, Texas to a crowd of 15,000 pastors and religious activists.
I know that you can’t endorse me,” he declared, but “I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing.” The pastors went wild. Reagan went on to air his personal doubts about the theory of evolution. Then he offered a homespun hypothetical: if he were to be trapped on an island with only one book, he said, he would take the Bible. “All of the complex questions facing us at home and abroad,” he said, “have their answer in that single book.”
With his speech in Mississippi, Reagan secured the support of southern white racists. But it was his speech in Dallas that married Christian nationalists to his candidacy and forged the bond with the Republican Party that lasts to this day. Weyrich’s vision came to fruition.
David Barton
In today’s political arena, the number of Christian nationalist influencers is too great to capture. But Stewart suggests that Barton is the “where’s Waldo” of the movement—showing up everywhere.
Barton got a bachelor’s degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University and, until his early 30s, was a math teacher and principal at a Christian high school. Then he became convinced that the whole idea of the founder’s commitment to a wall of separation between church and state was a myth. Here is how Stewart describes Barton’s historiography.
American was once a single nation with a single God. It goes on to describe a fall and a cause for grievance as the righteous lose their hold, thanks to the actions of secular liberals. The story of the past thus leads inexorably to a political prescription for the future, which for the most part involves retaking the court system and the rest of government and turning it over to Bible believers.
Those are some of the historical highlights that led Stewart to this conclusion.
America’s conservative movement, having morphed into a religious nationalist movement, is on a collision course with the American constitutional system. Though conservatives have long claimed to be the true champions of the Constitution — remember all that chatter during previous Republican administrations about “originalism” and “judicial restraint” — the movement that now controls the Republican Party is committed to a suite of ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution and the Republic that the founders created under its auspices. Mr. Trump’s presidency was not the cause of this anti-democratic movement in American politics. It was the consequence. He is the chosen instrument, not of God, but of today’s Christian nationalists, their political allies and funders, and the movement’s legal apparatus.
To outsiders, the question often arises about why this religious movement would remain loyal to such an amoral president. But that fails to take into account the fact that Christian nationalism is “authoritarian, paranoid, and patriarchal to its core … In Mr. Trump, they have found a man who does not merely serve their cause, but also satisfies their craving for a certain kind of political leadership.”
Reading Stewart’s book is certainly enlightening, but it can also be depressing. She ends, however, on a note that harkens back to Barack Obama’s most important speech: the one he gave at the 50th anniversary of the Selma march where he talked about what it means to be an American. Stewart emphasized the same theme.
If we want to guard against demagogues and theocrats who wish to “redeem” America, we don’t need a new theory of American democracy. We just need to recover and restore the vision of a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-17--The Republicans Are All Michael Dukakis Now

I always thought the Willie Horton controversy was painfully simple where it mattered for politics even if the underlying issues were somewhat murky .
A man had committed a murder and been sentenced to life without parole .
Then , for some reason , he was granted a weekend furlough from which he did not return , after which he went on crime spree that included assault , armed robbery and rape .
Now , someone could try to explain why people who were not eligible for parole in their lifetime were eligible for a weekend furlough system , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Horton ’ s case .
This is how I think about Donald Trump ’ s Senate acquittal in his impeachment trial .
Everyone responsible for letting Trump off the hook is now saddled with the results of everything he does for the remainder of his life .
Yes , I include even acts he takes when he ’ s an ordinary citizen again after he leaves office .
History will look at his entire biography when it renders its verdict on his impeachment jurors .
Of course , Trump is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , as Philip Rucker explains in the Washington Post .
Seven months after [ Robert ] Mueller ’ s marathon testimony brought finality to the Russia investigation , Trump is actively seeking to rewrite the narrative that had been meticulously documented by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials , both for immediate political gain and for history .
Turbocharged by his acquittal in the Senate ’ s impeachment trial and confident that he has acquired the fealty of nearly every Republican in Congress , Trump is claiming vindication and exoneration not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for which the House voted to impeach him — but also from the other investigations that have dogged his presidency .
I was struck by the phrase : “ confident that he has acquired the fealty of nearly every Republican in Congress.
” I don ’ t know if “ fealty ” is how I would describe the situation , but every Republican in Congress other than Mitt Romney is invested in Trump ’ s future performance , because they ’ re all responsible now for him being in a position to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more disastrous the outcomes , the more severe will be the impact on the legacies of his enablers .
Even if they were to reverse course and vote to remove Trump in a second impeachment trial , they ’ d still be liable for not having done so at the first opportunity .
For this reason , congressional Republicans are invested in Trump ’ s success in an extraordinary way .
It ’ s not just that need him to be perform well in the upcoming election to protect their own performance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in him to be vindicated so that their entire careers aren ’ t besmirched by their impeachment votes .
Trump ’ s congressional allies have always been reluctant to criticize him , but now every criticism is an indictment of their own conduct in allowing him to remain president .
And that creates a kind of “ fealty.
” Michael Dukakis discovered something similar .
The Republicans successfully argued that , having let Willie Horton go , Dukakis was responsible for whatever Horton did thereafter .
They also argued that the soft-on-crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was indicative of what Dukakis would do as president .
People can quibble about this by focusing on the merits of the furlough system and its overall record , or by emphasizing the nakedly racist way in which the Republicans packaged and turbocharged their message .
They can question how responsible Dukakis really was for this single case , or what it truly portended for a Dukakis administration .
But , on the strict politics , it was an incredibly effective attack .
The furlough system had a giant weakness , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with life sentences voluntarily returning to prison .
If they did not , they were responsible for any crimes committed on the outside .
The congressional Republicans are all Michael Dukakis now .

I always thought the Willie Horton controversy was painfully simple where it mattered for politics even if the underlying issues were somewhat murky. A man had committed a murder and been sentenced to life without parole. Then, for some reason, he was granted a weekend furlough from which he did not return, after which he went on crime spree that included assault, armed robbery and rape.
Now, someone could try to explain why people who were not eligible for parole in their lifetime were eligible for a weekend furlough system, but no one wanted to defend the result in Horton’s case.
This is how I think about Donald Trump’s Senate acquittal in his impeachment trial.
Everyone responsible for letting Trump off the hook is now saddled with the results of everything he does for the remainder of his life. Yes, I include even acts he takes when he’s an ordinary citizen again after he leaves office. History will look at his entire biography when it renders its verdict on his impeachment jurors.
Of course, Trump is in the process of trying to mold that history right now, as Philip Rucker explains in the Washington Post.
Seven months after [Robert] Mueller’s marathon testimony brought finality to the Russia investigation, Trump is actively seeking to rewrite the narrative that had been meticulously documented by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, both for immediate political gain and for history. Turbocharged by his acquittal in the Senate’s impeachment trial and confident that he has acquired the fealty of nearly every Republican in Congress, Trump is claiming vindication and exoneration not only over his conduct with Ukraine — for which the House voted to impeach him — but also from the other investigations that have dogged his presidency.
I was struck by the phrase: “confident that he has acquired the fealty of nearly every Republican in Congress.”
I don’t know if “fealty” is how I would describe the situation, but every Republican in Congress other than Mitt Romney is invested in Trump’s future performance, because they’re all responsible now for him being in a position to act. The worse he behaves and the more disastrous the outcomes, the more severe will be the impact on the legacies of his enablers.
Even if they were to reverse course and vote to remove Trump in a second impeachment trial, they’d still be liable for not having done so at the first opportunity. For this reason, congressional Republicans are invested in Trump’s success in an extraordinary way. It’s not just that need him to be perform well in the upcoming election to protect their own performance on the same ballot. They need their faith in him to be vindicated so that their entire careers aren’t besmirched by their impeachment votes.
Trump’s congressional allies have always been reluctant to criticize him, but now every criticism is an indictment of their own conduct in allowing him to remain president. And that creates a kind of “fealty.”
Michael Dukakis discovered something similar. The Republicans successfully argued that, having let Willie Horton go, Dukakis was responsible for whatever Horton did thereafter. They also argued that the soft-on-crime mindset that enabled Horton’s escape was indicative of what Dukakis would do as president.
People can quibble about this by focusing on the merits of the furlough system and its overall record, or by emphasizing the nakedly racist way in which the Republicans packaged and turbocharged their message. They can question how responsible Dukakis really was for this single case, or what it truly portended for a Dukakis administration. But, on the strict politics, it was an incredibly effective attack. The furlough system had a giant weakness, which was that its architects were dependent on people with life sentences voluntarily returning to prison. If they did not, they were responsible for any crimes committed on the outside.
The congressional Republicans are all Michael Dukakis now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-18--Why Autocrats Are Starting to Ditch Trump and Embrace China

Flattery is not foreign policy , and Trump ’ s fan-boy attitude towards Rodrigo Duterte has not convinced the populist Filipino leader that Manila ’ s future and his personal power are assured by remaining allied with the United States .
Instead , he has chosen to throw in his lot with Xi Jinping and the promise posed by China as a regionally rising economic superpower .
This is not only bad news for America ’ s strategic rebalancing in the Pacific and for regional security .
It is really bad news for those other Southeast Asian nations looking around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to balance their economic and security interests against their long-standing American trading and security alliance partners.Any way you look at this , Duterte ’ s move is big .
On Tuesday , Duterte let the United States know that he was dumping the 69-year-old treaty alliance that allowed American forces to remain and train in the Philippines .
It ’ s not just the carrot of Chinese capital that has attracted Duterte to Beijing .
The Philippine president feels insulted and justifies turning away from the United States by saying “ America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of human-rights violations .
Human rights , however , have never been a priority for the Trump administration .
POTUS arrived in the White House ready and willing to toss democratic principles , values , norms and rules in the dumpster .
Duterte has it all wrong .
Trump is a true ally who embraces Duterte ’ s autocratic rhetoric .
Trump envies Duterte ’ s dictatorial style and tough-guy approach to law enforcement and politics .
Trump entered office encouraging American law enforcement to use extrajudicial measures —whether slamming perps heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio .
The latest outrage is Trump ’ s admiration for summary death penalties for drug dealers .
Duterte has encouraged vigilantism by everyone from civilians to police to government forces .
His approach has been to give a pass to anyone who kills a suspected drug user or dealer .
He flaunts his own tough-guy credentials by bragging about personally killing criminals .
He waves around guns to prove his seriousness and reinforce his power .
Trump has tried to court Duterte ’ s loyalty to — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices a populism aligning his personal leadership style with Duterte ’ s .
Despite the anti-charm offensive , and regardless of the two countries ’ clearly shared interests , the Philippine leader just bet his country ’ s future on the People ’ s Republic of China .
In effect , long-standing military relations have just been reversed , and America has been told to go home .
The U.S.-Philippine relationship has never really been smooth .
Duterte still harbors resentment for a 1906 Moro massacre so fierce and unjust that it drew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Volcanoes and tightening American budgets in the 1990s shut down Clark Air Base .
Entire Filipino communities that relied on employment and business from U.S. bases suddenly were out of luck .
The two countries ’ relationship survived the Marcos regime and the destructive Mt .
Pinatubo volcano .
In fact , the Yellow Revolution that overthrew full-fledged dictator Ferdinand Marcos brought to power an Aquino family boasting deep American training and credentials .
Corazon Aquino felt both grateful and indebted to the United States for supporting the overthrow of the Marcos regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and functional electoral democracy .
The bad news ?
Philippine ’ s successor democracy gave voters the conditions to sweep into office the tough-talking populist politician Duterte in 2016 .
Philippine democracy is now threatened , in part , because China is happy to support reliable autocratic leaders and because Trump ’ s feckless and personality-driven foreign policy toward Asia has alienated and pushed away Manila .
The Trump administration ’ s foreign policy lacks strategic coherence .
Instead , it favors super-summitry and presidential high-fives .
From Manila to Caracas , rightist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve them best and where to place their bets .
Throwing off perceived post-colonial American shackles for neo-colonial Chinese chains is a bad choice .
Unfortunately for the West and democracy , both Venezuela and the Philippines have wagered against Trump ’ s America .

Flattery is not foreign policy, and Trump’s fan-boy attitude towards Rodrigo Duterte has not convinced the populist Filipino leader that Manila’s future and his personal power are assured by remaining allied with the United States. Instead, he has chosen to throw in his lot with Xi Jinping and the promise posed by China as a regionally rising economic superpower.
This is not only bad news for America’s strategic rebalancing in the Pacific and for regional security. It is really bad news for those other Southeast Asian nations looking around their neighborhood and trying to figure out how to balance their economic and security interests against their long-standing American trading and security alliance partners.Any way you look at this, Duterte’s move is big. On Tuesday, Duterte let the United States know that he was dumping the 69-year-old treaty alliance that allowed American forces to remain and train in the Philippines.
It’s not just the carrot of Chinese capital that has attracted Duterte to Beijing. The Philippine president feels insulted and justifies turning away from the United States by saying “America is very rude” to Filipino friends accused of human-rights violations.
Human rights, however, have never been a priority for the Trump administration. POTUS arrived in the White House ready and willing to toss democratic principles, values, norms and rules in the dumpster.
Duterte has it all wrong.
Trump is a true ally who embraces Duterte’s autocratic rhetoric. Trump envies Duterte’s dictatorial style and tough-guy approach to law enforcement and politics. Trump entered office encouraging American law enforcement to use extrajudicial measures —whether slamming perps heads into cop-car roofs or encouraging the illegal actions of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The latest outrage is Trump’s admiration for summary death penalties for drug dealers.
Duterte has encouraged vigilantism by everyone from civilians to police to government forces. His approach has been to give a pass to anyone who kills a suspected drug user or dealer. He flaunts his own tough-guy credentials by bragging about personally killing criminals. He waves around guns to prove his seriousness and reinforce his power.
Trump has tried to court Duterte’s loyalty to — and love for — America. POTUS practices a populism aligning his personal leadership style with Duterte’s. Despite the anti-charm offensive, and regardless of the two countries’ clearly shared interests, the Philippine leader just bet his country’s future on the People’s Republic of China.
In effect, long-standing military relations have just been reversed, and America has been told to go home.
The U.S.-Philippine relationship has never really been smooth. Duterte still harbors resentment for a 1906 Moro massacre so fierce and unjust that it drew the attention of Samuel Clemens—Mark Twain. Volcanoes and tightening American budgets in the 1990s shut down Clark Air Base. Entire Filipino communities that relied on employment and business from U.S. bases suddenly were out of luck.
The two countries’ relationship survived the Marcos regime and the destructive Mt. Pinatubo volcano. In fact, the Yellow Revolution that overthrew full-fledged dictator Ferdinand Marcos brought to power an Aquino family boasting deep American training and credentials. Corazon Aquino felt both grateful and indebted to the United States for supporting the overthrow of the Marcos regime and the successful transition to a civilian-led and functional electoral democracy.
The bad news? Philippine’s successor democracy gave voters the conditions to sweep into office the tough-talking populist politician Duterte in 2016.
Philippine democracy is now threatened, in part, because China is happy to support reliable autocratic leaders and because Trump’s feckless and personality-driven foreign policy toward Asia has alienated and pushed away Manila. The Trump administration’s foreign policy lacks strategic coherence. Instead, it favors super-summitry and presidential high-fives.
From Manila to Caracas, rightist and leftist leaders calculate which allies will serve them best and where to place their bets. Throwing off perceived post-colonial American shackles for neo-colonial Chinese chains is a bad choice. Unfortunately for the West and democracy, both Venezuela and the Philippines have wagered against Trump’s America.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-18--William Barr Is Not Trump’s Lapdog

William Barr Is Not Trump’s Lapdog

During Attorney General Barr ’ s interview with Pierre Thomas of ABC News , he declared his independence .
As I , you know , said during my confirmation , I came in to serve as Attorney General .
I am responsible for everything that happens in the department , but the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision .
And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do and I ’ m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Congress , newspaper editorial boards , or the president .
I ’ m going to do what I think is right .
As was Barr ’ s intent , the media focused on his suggestion that he wouldn ’ t be bullied by the president .
But after his intervention with regards to Roger Stone ’ s sentencing recommendation , a whole host of people are beginning to speak out in a way that Barr might consider to be bullying .
At this point , over 2,000 former Department of Justice employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zebrak ) have signed a letter calling on the attorney general to resign .
In an unprecedented move , federal judges have acknowledged the crisis .
Finally , former U.S. Deputy Attorney General under George H.W .
Bush , Donald Ayer , has called on the attorney general to resign .
Here is how he explained his conclusion to Nicole Wallace .
Ayer points out that “ the things that [ Barr ] has done , which are totally inappropriate , are not a mistake .
They are a reflection of who he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he believes is un-American .
What he believes is that the president should be a person above the law.
” When the attorney general claimed that he wouldn ’ t be bullied , but would simply do what he thinks is right , he was actually telling the truth .
Jon Allsop writes that a lot of the media missed Barr ’ s point .
[ T ] he framing of Barr as Trump ’ s lapdog risks obscuring a much more important fact .
Barr is probably being truthful when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks is right—because , on available evidence , the subservience of the Justice Department to the will and power of the president is what he thinks is right .
Barr believes in the centralization of presidential power—just to the point , critics say , where the president is effectively above the law .
Barr reached that view independently of Trump .
That isn ’ t a belief that surfaced in defense of Donald Trump and it predates Barr ’ s previous term as attorney general under George H.W .
Bush .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s high school classmates , it dates back to his time at an elite private school in the late 1960s .
I found Garrick Beck at his house in Santa Fe more than 50 years after he graduated from Horace Mann .
As teenagers , he said , he and his friend Billy debated a subject that has become a touchstone in American politics today : What are the parameters of presidential authority as defined by the founders ?
Beck had a granular recall of those discussions : “ What we believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued about the Constitution as it was reflected in President Lyndon Johnson ’ s treatment of the war .
I argued that Johnson did not have the constitutional authority to enact this war .
Billy said , ‘ All the president needs to declare war is an executive order .
That is all !
’ That article by Marie Brenner goes on to describe Barr ’ s conservative , dictatorial father , who was revered by Bill and his four brothers .
Coming during the turbulent times of the Vietnam War , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer of love ” in San Francisco , Barr ’ s transition from a private high school to Columbia seemed to solidify his authoritarian tendencies .
In writing about Barr ’ s speech on executive power to the Federalist Society , Ayer notes this quote , confirming the fact that the attorney general ’ s priorities solidified around that time .
That is a theme that is rampant among Christian nationalists ( or nostalgia voters ) .
The myth about an America they want to “ redeem ” is grounded in the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and early 70s .
It was the basis of Barr ’ s claims during his speech at Notre Dame , where he postulated that all of the evils of society are the result of a “ holy war ” waged by progressives .
The answer to that threat , according to the attorney general , is to empower an authoritarian president , who is above the law , as a way to re-establish order .
In Donald Trump , Barr has found just the kind of leader to do that .
So he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him about how to defend the president and persecute his enemies .
Doing so is what animates this attorney general and his un-American tendencies .

During Attorney General Barr’s interview with Pierre Thomas of ABC News, he declared his independence.
As I, you know, said during my confirmation, I came in to serve as Attorney General. I am responsible for everything that happens in the department, but the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision. And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do and I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody. And I said, whether it’s Congress, newspaper editorial boards, or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.
As was Barr’s intent, the media focused on his suggestion that he wouldn’t be bullied by the president. But after his intervention with regards to Roger Stone’s sentencing recommendation, a whole host of people are beginning to speak out in a way that Barr might consider to be bullying.
At this point, over 2,000 former Department of Justice employees (including Washington Monthly contributor Julie Rodin Zebrak) have signed a letter calling on the attorney general to resign.
Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.
In an unprecedented move, federal judges have acknowledged the crisis.
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday. Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.
Finally, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General under George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer, has called on the attorney general to resign. Here is how he explained his conclusion to Nicole Wallace.
Ayer points out that “the things that [Barr] has done, which are totally inappropriate, are not a mistake. They are a reflection of who he is and what he believes. And what he believes is un-American. What he believes is that the president should be a person above the law.”
When the attorney general claimed that he wouldn’t be bullied, but would simply do what he thinks is right, he was actually telling the truth. Jon Allsop writes that a lot of the media missed Barr’s point.
[T]he framing of Barr as Trump’s lapdog risks obscuring a much more important fact. Barr is probably being truthful when he says he’s doing what he thinks is right—because, on available evidence, the subservience of the Justice Department to the will and power of the president is what he thinks is right. Barr believes in the centralization of presidential power—just to the point, critics say, where the president is effectively above the law. Barr reached that view independently of Trump.
That isn’t a belief that surfaced in defense of Donald Trump and it predates Barr’s previous term as attorney general under George H.W. Bush. As a matter of fact, according to Barr’s high school classmates, it dates back to his time at an elite private school in the late 1960s.
I found Garrick Beck at his house in Santa Fe more than 50 years after he graduated from Horace Mann. As teenagers, he said, he and his friend Billy debated a subject that has become a touchstone in American politics today: What are the parameters of presidential authority as defined by the founders? Beck had a granular recall of those discussions: “What we believed innately was already showing through. We argued about the Constitution as it was reflected in President Lyndon Johnson’s treatment of the war. I argued that Johnson did not have the constitutional authority to enact this war. Billy said, ‘All the president needs to declare war is an executive order. That is all!’
That article by Marie Brenner goes on to describe Barr’s conservative, dictatorial father, who was revered by Bill and his four brothers. Coming during the turbulent times of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the “summer of love” in San Francisco, Barr’s transition from a private high school to Columbia seemed to solidify his authoritarian tendencies.
In the face of all this turbulence, Barr went off to Columbia, which erupted his freshman year. The campus strikes and shutdowns, he would later admit, were absolutely crucial in focusing his priorities. When student protests shuttered college buildings, he used the word anarchic to describe the face-off.
In writing about Barr’s speech on executive power to the Federalist Society, Ayer notes this quote, confirming the fact that the attorney general’s priorities solidified around that time.
[T]he deck has become stacked against the executive. Since the mid-’60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority, that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the president’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches.
That is a theme that is rampant among Christian nationalists (or nostalgia voters). The myth about an America they want to “redeem” is grounded in the idea that liberals corrupted everything in the 60s and early 70s. It was the basis of Barr’s claims during his speech at Notre Dame, where he postulated that all of the evils of society are the result of a “holy war” waged by progressives.
The answer to that threat, according to the attorney general, is to empower an authoritarian president, who is above the law, as a way to re-establish order. In Donald Trump, Barr has found just the kind of leader to do that. So he doesn’t need anyone to bully him about how to defend the president and persecute his enemies. Doing so is what animates this attorney general and his un-American tendencies.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-18--Is This Country Ready to Lurch to the Left?

It ’ s easy to get whiplash these days , especially if you believe in data .
This morning , you can learn from Gallup that the country remains ideologically slanted to the right : You can also learn from Daily Kos Elections that Donald Trump ’ s reelection prospects have never looked worse : You can read Eric Levitz ’ s big piece in New York magazine that explores the hard-left leanings of Millennials and Generation Z. Technically , it ’ s possible for all of these things to be true at the same time despite the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re trying to put together this puzzle to see what it portends for the upcoming election , it seems like a very daunting task .
We ’ re accustomed to seeing a gender gap and voter preferences starkly divided by region and race , and we know that the electoral college is very capable of rendering a different verdict from the popular vote .
We ’ ve never seen generational splits like this , however , and pollsters aren ’ t giving us the information in a way that really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape the outcome in November .
For example , we don ’ t know if the youth vote is as divided by region as the rest of the electorate .
Are the kids in Oklahoma as socialist friendly as the left-leaning kids in Oregon ?
How about in the rural areas of the Rust Belt ?
Can Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren hope to outperform Hillary Clinton in small-town Pennsylvania because folks under thirty there will vote differently from their MAGA hat-wearing parents ?
How would these same kids feel about Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age difference look like with Pete Buttigieg on the ballot ?
Finally , how much youth turnout would be necessary to overcome the natural tendency of older voters to hit above their weight in the voting booth ?
We can ask similar questions about the folks over sixty-five .
The data suggest that they ’ d be far more likely to back a candidate perceived as moderate than a strong progressive .
To what degree is this true , and at what point would it overwhelm any surge in voter participation from younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer to this question in a small handful of swing states .
I tend to focus more on the urban/suburban vs. rural/small town split , as it helps me model what it will take to win in the traditionally blue states that Trump carried in 2016 .
Sanders-style Democratic socialism doesn ’ t play well in the affluent suburbs outside Philadelphia where I live .
My county voted for George W. Bush twice before splitting between Obama , Romney , and Clinton .
Clinton actually did the best of the bunch , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing depending on the candidates on offer .
And there ’ s some reason to believe the youth vote here will act differently from the youth vote in less wealthy areas .
Eric Levitz looks at the recent results out of New Hampshire in the context of data showing that real median income for college grads looks much different for kids that attend elite vs. ordinary colleges .
Since the popular vote doesn ’ t determine the winner of the presidential election , it matters a lot how sentiments in the youth vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout might differ by region .
It ’ s quite possible that one Democrat could create a successful distribution of votes while another would not , despite them both getting about the same number of total votes across the entirety of the country .
Yet , regional and urban/suburban vs. rural/small town polarization seems to be the most immutable and growing phenomenon of the Trump Era .
It ’ s hard to bet on any Democrat being able to stem or especially reverse this trend .
A candidate who we can expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suburbs and among voters over 65 would need to make up for it by over-performing by a bigger amount with the under-30 crowd and in Trump ’ s rural areas of strength .
And they ’ d have to do this in clearly defined states like Michigan and Pennsylvania .
It ’ s hard to gamble on this happening when the more natural and obvious road to victory is to roll up bigger margins in the suburbs than Clinton did ( which seems to be the trajectory we ’ re on ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than Clinton with the youth vote in rural areas .
The surest road to defeat seems to be entering the contest with a badly divided Democratic Party where there are folks who actually prefer Trump to their own party ’ s candidate , and also a large contingent of people who will sit it out because they ’ re angry at how their preferred candidate was treated during the primaries .
It seems obvious that a more progressive kind of politics is on the horizon , but I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 .

It’s easy to get whiplash these days, especially if you believe in data. This morning, you can learn from Gallup that the country remains ideologically slanted to the right:
“As Americans continued to lean more Democratic than Republican in their party preferences in 2019, the ideological balance of the country remained center-right, with 37% of Americans, on average, identifying as conservative during the year, 35% as moderate and 24% as liberal.”
You can also learn from Daily Kos Elections that Donald Trump’s reelection prospects have never looked worse:
You can read Eric Levitz’s big piece in New York magazine that explores the hard-left leanings of Millennials and Generation Z.
Blue America’s gaping chasm of a generation gap has been a — if not the — defining feature of the Democratic primary race thus far. An Economist/YouGov poll released this week found that 60 percent of Democrats younger than 30 support either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren; among those 65 and older, the progressive candidates’ combined total was 27 percent. Before the Vermont senator’s strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, surveys showed an even wider age divide: In late January, Quinnipiac had Joe Biden leading the field nationally — even as he trailed Bernie Sanders among voters 35 and younger by a margin of 53 to 3 percent. Exit polls from New Hampshire affirmed this generational split, with Sanders winning 47 percent of voters 18 to 29, but just 15 percent of those over 65.
Technically, it’s possible for all of these things to be true at the same time despite the fact that they seem to tell contradictory stories. If you’re trying to put together this puzzle to see what it portends for the upcoming election, it seems like a very daunting task. We’re accustomed to seeing a gender gap and voter preferences starkly divided by region and race, and we know that the electoral college is very capable of rendering a different verdict from the popular vote. We’ve never seen generational splits like this, however, and pollsters aren’t giving us the information in a way that really allows us to understand how it might shape the outcome in November.
For example, we don’t know if the youth vote is as divided by region as the rest of the electorate. Are the kids in Oklahoma as socialist friendly as the left-leaning kids in Oregon? How about in the rural areas of the Rust Belt? Can Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren hope to outperform Hillary Clinton in small-town Pennsylvania because folks under thirty there will vote differently from their MAGA hat-wearing parents? How would these same kids feel about Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg? What would this age difference look like with Pete Buttigieg on the ballot? Finally, how much youth turnout would be necessary to overcome the natural tendency of older voters to hit above their weight in the voting booth?
We can ask similar questions about the folks over sixty-five. The data suggest that they’d be far more likely to back a candidate perceived as moderate than a strong progressive. To what degree is this true, and at what point would it overwhelm any surge in voter participation from younger voters? We might only need the answer to this question in a small handful of swing states.
I tend to focus more on the urban/suburban vs. rural/small town split, as it helps me model what it will take to win in the traditionally blue states that Trump carried in 2016. Sanders-style Democratic socialism doesn’t play well in the affluent suburbs outside Philadelphia where I live. My county voted for George W. Bush twice before splitting between Obama, Romney, and Clinton. Clinton actually did the best of the bunch, but there’s a lot of potential swing depending on the candidates on offer.
And there’s some reason to believe the youth vote here will act differently from the youth vote in less wealthy areas. Eric Levitz looks at the recent results out of New Hampshire in the context of data showing that real median income for college grads looks much different for kids that attend elite vs. ordinary colleges.
A vulgar Marxist looking at Bloomberg’s chart might predict that the college students and graduates of less prestigious, public universities — who have been most disserved by the “knowledge economy” myth — would be even more inclined toward left-wing politics than their Ivy League peers. And the results of the New Hampshire primary lend credence to that view: While Pete Buttigieg held his own in the town of Hanover, home to Dartmouth, Sanders cleaned his clock in the precincts surrounding the University of New Hampshire.
Since the popular vote doesn’t determine the winner of the presidential election, it matters a lot how sentiments in the youth vote differ by state, and also how turnout might differ by region. It’s quite possible that one Democrat could create a successful distribution of votes while another would not, despite them both getting about the same number of total votes across the entirety of the country.
Yet, regional and urban/suburban vs. rural/small town polarization seems to be the most immutable and growing phenomenon of the Trump Era. It’s hard to bet on any Democrat being able to stem or especially reverse this trend. A candidate who we can expect to underperform Clinton among the over-30 crowd in the suburbs and among voters over 65 would need to make up for it by over-performing by a bigger amount with the under-30 crowd and in Trump’s rural areas of strength. And they’d have to do this in clearly defined states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
It’s hard to gamble on this happening when the more natural and obvious road to victory is to roll up bigger margins in the suburbs than Clinton did (which seems to be the trajectory we’re on) while hoping that any Democrat will do better than Clinton with the youth vote in rural areas.
The surest road to defeat seems to be entering the contest with a badly divided Democratic Party where there are folks who actually prefer Trump to their own party’s candidate, and also a large contingent of people who will sit it out because they’re angry at how their preferred candidate was treated during the primaries.
It seems obvious that a more progressive kind of politics is on the horizon, but I don’t know if we’ll be there yet in 2020.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-18--The Lies Aren’t Meant to Be Consistent

The Lies Aren’t Meant to Be Consistent

That basically confirms earlier reporting that it was McConnell who refused to issue a bipartisan warning to state election officials about potential Russian interference .
Overall , the bipartisan committee report implies that the Obama administration was too slow , timid , and guarded in their response to Russian interference .
But then , Senators Risch , Rubio , Cotton , Cornyn and Sasse wrote a separate partisan response that basically blasted the administration for not being more aggressive .
In other words , they are criticizing President Obama for not being more publicly assertive about the investigation Trump calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all of that , we also learn that the investigation of the investigators being conducted by John Durham seems to have set its sights on former CIA Director Brennan .
Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A.
, under its former director John O. Brennan , had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal , the people said .
As we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake-up call ” Brennan sent to the White House consisted of a warning that , not only was Russia attempting to interfere in the 2016 election , the efforts were being directed by Vladimir Putin in support of Donald Trump .
It is that last part that Barr desperately wants to undermine as part of Trump ’ s attempt to re-write history .
Here is how Barr and Durham are going about doing that .
The Durham investigation has rattled current and former intelligence officers .
Little precedent exists for a criminal prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence agencies , said Michael Morrell , a former acting C.I.A .
director who left the government in 2013 .
“ This whole thing is so abnormal , ” Mr. Morrell said .
Prosecutors are ill equipped to assess how analysts work , he added .
“ The bar for making a legal judgment is really high .
The bar for an analytic decision is much lower , ” Mr. Morrell said .
“ So he is going to get the wrong answer if he tries to figure out if they had enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reminiscent of something that former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson warned about .
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes , a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone .
In such a case , it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it , it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some offense on him .
It now appears that Durham is going in search of a “ technical violation ” that he can pin on John Brennan for sending a “ wake up call ” to the White House about Putin ’ s intentions .
All of that is underway as the Senate Intelligence Committee finds that the Obama administration wasn ’ t aggressive enough in dealing with an attack on our elections that the current president calls “ a hoax.
” Got it ?
The lies aren ’ t meant to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupt the truth from being exposed .

That basically confirms earlier reporting that it was McConnell who refused to issue a bipartisan warning to state election officials about potential Russian interference.
Overall, the bipartisan committee report implies that the Obama administration was too slow, timid, and guarded in their response to Russian interference. But then, Senators Risch, Rubio, Cotton, Cornyn and Sasse wrote a separate partisan response that basically blasted the administration for not being more aggressive. In other words, they are criticizing President Obama for not being more publicly assertive about the investigation Trump calls “a hoax.”
In the midst of all of that, we also learn that the investigation of the investigators being conducted by John Durham seems to have set its sights on former CIA Director Brennan.
Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.
As we’ve already seen, the “wake-up call” Brennan sent to the White House consisted of a warning that, not only was Russia attempting to interfere in the 2016 election, the efforts were being directed by Vladimir Putin in support of Donald Trump. It is that last part that Barr desperately wants to undermine as part of Trump’s attempt to re-write history.
Here is how Barr and Durham are going about doing that.
The Durham investigation has rattled current and former intelligence officers. Little precedent exists for a criminal prosecutor to review the analytic judgment-making process of intelligence agencies, said Michael Morrell, a former acting C.I.A. director who left the government in 2013. “This whole thing is so abnormal,” Mr. Morrell said. Prosecutors are ill equipped to assess how analysts work, he added. “The bar for making a legal judgment is really high. The bar for an analytic decision is much lower,” Mr. Morrell said. “So he is going to get the wrong answer if he tries to figure out if they had enough information to make this judgment.”
That is reminiscent of something that former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson warned about.
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.
It now appears that Durham is going in search of a “technical violation” that he can pin on John Brennan for sending a “wake up call” to the White House about Putin’s intentions. All of that is underway as the Senate Intelligence Committee finds that the Obama administration wasn’t aggressive enough in dealing with an attack on our elections that the current president calls “a hoax.” Got it? The lies aren’t meant to be consistent. The goal is merely to disrupt the truth from being exposed.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-19--Why Trump’s Vendetta Against Obama Is a Losing Proposition

Barack Obama took advantage of an anniversary on Monday to poke at one of the lies being repeated by his successor .
Since his administration began , Trump has attacked Obama ’ s record of job creation and touted his own .
Perhaps long-time readers here at the Washington Monthly will enjoy the fact that I intend to expose that lie based on information provided by Steve Benen and Kevin Drum .
Here ’ s Benen : Of course , Drum put the specifics into a chart .
It will surprise no one that data means nothing to Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken up residence in Trump ’ s head—rent-free .
Jonathan Chait recently documented another way that Trump ’ s efforts to undo Obama ’ s legacy are failing .
One of the Obama administration ’ s most effective climate initiatives was tightened regulations of auto emissions , which will reduce carbon emissions by billions of tons .
Trump , of course , is trying to roll it back .
The good news is that he is almost certainly too incompetent to pull it off in his first term .
When regulatory agencies write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some fairly complicated legal procedures , which often have to hold up under judicial scrutiny .
Historically , agencies win about 80 percent of the time against legal challenges .
But Trump ’ s regulations lose about 90 percent of the time , because his administration is staffed with incompetent hacks .
The courts will soon be fighting over Trump ’ s plan to weaken auto-emission standards .
Trump is highly likely to lose , because , as two new reports show , the incompetence of his regulators reached almost mind-boggling proportions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article by Robinson Meyer that details how the Trump administration ’ s attempt to kill the auto-emission standards has been a “ complete debacle ” and one from Coral Davenport predicting a dead end for Trump ’ s efforts .
What also caught my eye was the fact that Trump ’ s regulations ( or attempts to roll back Obama ’ s regulations ) have failed in court about 90 percent of the time .
That number comes from the Institute for Policy Integrity , which has been tracking this administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 70 cases they have followed , Trump has won four and lost 66 .
As Chait points out , typically federal agencies have won about 80 percent of the time , so this administration ’ s record is worse than abysmal .
In writing about the effort to roll back Obama ’ s fuel-efficiency standards , Davenport identified the problem .
In January , administration staff members appointed by President Trump sent a draft of the scaled-back fuel economy standards to the White House , but six people familiar with the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” sprinkled with glaring numerical and spelling errors ( such as “ Massachusettes ” ) , with 111 sections marked “ text forthcoming.
” The cost-benefit analysis showed that consumers would lose more money than they would gain .
And , because the new auto pollution rule lacks the detailed technical analyses required by law , the regulations would be unlikely to withstand court challenges… More basic issues holding up the regulations point to another problem : the skeleton crew of inexperienced political appointees who are heading the drafting process may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be handled by career federal workers with decades of expertise .
As Chait rightfully suggested , Trump ’ s actual goal of humiliating Obama can ’ t be included in the analysis .
So his incompetent staff are left with trying to manipulate the numbers and the science , which don ’ t support the president ’ s goals .
For Trump , things like math , science , and expertise are anathema .
His only concern is to prop up his own narcissistic ego and demean anyone he views as a threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendetta against Obama ’ s legacy will always be a losing proposition .
His incompetence overshadows his malevolence .

Barack Obama took advantage of an anniversary on Monday to poke at one of the lies being repeated by his successor.
Since his administration began, Trump has attacked Obama’s record of job creation and touted his own. Perhaps long-time readers here at the Washington Monthly will enjoy the fact that I intend to expose that lie based on information provided by Steve Benen and Kevin Drum. Here’s Benen:
As we discussed after the release of the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Trump has now been in office for three full years (36 months), and during that time, the economy has created 6.56 million jobs. In the final full three years of Obama’s presidency, the economy created 8.08 million jobs.
Of course, Drum put the specifics into a chart.
It will surprise no one that data means nothing to Trump.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1229551220248936451
As the saying goes, Obama has taken up residence in Trump’s head—rent-free.
Jonathan Chait recently documented another way that Trump’s efforts to undo Obama’s legacy are failing.
One of the Obama administration’s most effective climate initiatives was tightened regulations of auto emissions, which will reduce carbon emissions by billions of tons. Trump, of course, is trying to roll it back. The good news is that he is almost certainly too incompetent to pull it off in his first term. When regulatory agencies write new rules, they have to follow some fairly complicated legal procedures, which often have to hold up under judicial scrutiny. Historically, agencies win about 80 percent of the time against legal challenges. But Trump’s regulations lose about 90 percent of the time, because his administration is staffed with incompetent hacks. The courts will soon be fighting over Trump’s plan to weaken auto-emission standards. Trump is highly likely to lose, because, as two new reports show, the incompetence of his regulators reached almost mind-boggling proportions.
The reports Chait referred to come from an article by Robinson Meyer that details how the Trump administration’s attempt to kill the auto-emission standards has been a “complete debacle” and one from Coral Davenport predicting a dead end for Trump’s efforts.
What also caught my eye was the fact that Trump’s regulations (or attempts to roll back Obama’s regulations) have failed in court about 90 percent of the time. That number comes from the Institute for Policy Integrity, which has been tracking this administration’s record in the courts. Of the 70 cases they have followed, Trump has won four and lost 66. As Chait points out, typically federal agencies have won about 80 percent of the time, so this administration’s record is worse than abysmal.
In writing about the effort to roll back Obama’s fuel-efficiency standards, Davenport identified the problem.
In January, administration staff members appointed by President Trump sent a draft of the scaled-back fuel economy standards to the White House, but six people familiar with the documents described them as “Swiss cheese,” sprinkled with glaring numerical and spelling errors (such as “Massachusettes”), with 111 sections marked “text forthcoming.” The cost-benefit analysis showed that consumers would lose more money than they would gain. And, because the new auto pollution rule lacks the detailed technical analyses required by law, the regulations would be unlikely to withstand court challenges… More basic issues holding up the regulations point to another problem: the skeleton crew of inexperienced political appointees who are heading the drafting process may not be up to a job that would usually be handled by career federal workers with decades of expertise.
As Chait rightfully suggested, Trump’s actual goal of humiliating Obama can’t be included in the analysis. So his incompetent staff are left with trying to manipulate the numbers and the science, which don’t support the president’s goals.
For Trump, things like math, science, and expertise are anathema. His only concern is to prop up his own narcissistic ego and demean anyone he views as a threat. That is why Trump’s vendetta against Obama’s legacy will always be a losing proposition. His incompetence overshadows his malevolence.


The Soviet Republicans

The most stirring statement of any witness in the House impeachment hearings last fall came from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council , who opened his testimony with thanks and reassurance to his father , who had brought his family to the United States for “ refuge from authoritarian oppression ” in the Soviet Union .
“ My simple act of appearing here today .
would not be tolerated in many places around the world .
In Russia , my act of expressing concern through the chain of command in an official and private channel would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life .
“ I am grateful for my father ’ s bold act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant where I can live free of fear for my and my family ’ s safety .
Dad , [ that ] I ’ m sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America in search of a better life for our family .
Do not worry .
I will be fine for telling the truth.
” After honoring a subpoena and testifying under oath on President Trump ’ s “ inappropriate ” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , Vindman got death threats so alarming that the Army and local police had to provide security .
The Army considered moving his family to safety on a military base .
And last week , after being acquitted in his impeachment trial , an unleashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and then threatened him ( by tweet ) with unspecified military punishment .
This was part of a widening pattern of retaliation by the Trump apparatus against impeachment witnesses and other independent thinkers in government .
The United States is not the Soviet Union , of course , and it ’ s a good bet that Vindman would never think it was .
Furthermore , invidious analogies between Trump and various forms of authoritarianism—fascism , Nazism , third-world dictatorships—are so common that they have lost their bite .
So it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American constitutional system is under immense strain by Republicans impatient with its messy checks on their power , the restraints have not yet broken .
Nevertheless , to one who lived in Moscow from 1975 to 1979 , there is a queasy taste of familiarity in the impulses of Trump and his Republican followers .
There is a certain kind of political actor , whether Soviet or American , who can not stand dissent and debate , who derides facts and truth , who sees all behavior through a lens of personal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no farther than immediate victory and the expansion of authority .
In this mindset , truth-tellers are “ enemies of the people , ” to quote Stalin and Trump .
Policy differences constitute warfare in which argument and rebuttal are not enough : Opponents must be destroyed through smears , propaganda , and retribution .
These actors have no moral brakes .
They wield whatever weapons the system permits .
In the post-Stalinist Soviet system that I observed , the punishments for suspicions of political irreverence ranged from mild to severe : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of promotion at work , a rejection of a coveted trip abroad , a job dismissal , a cutoff of your phone , even imprisonment or Siberian exile if your dissent was public and persistent .
Certain positions—journalist , history professor , factory manager , hospital director , and the like—required membership in the Communist Party , which was highly selective and relied on proof of political reliability .
In the United States , Republicans under Trump—and earlier under George W. Bush—have imposed their own kind of political orthodoxy , conducting litmus tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department and other agencies that are supposed to be non-political .
As I wrote in the last chapter of The Rights of the People , Bush administration “ applicants were asked ideologically charged questions : ‘ What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him ?
’ ‘ Tell us about your political philosophy , ’ whether you ’ re a ‘ social conservative , fiscal conservative , [ or ] law and order Republican.
’ ” Some in federal law enforcement were grilled on their views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their favorite Supreme Court justices , all matters irrelevant to their jobs .
Membership in the conservative Federalist Society was nearly as critical to getting hired in the Justice Department in Washington as membership in the Communist Party had been in Moscow .
So the impulse for ideological purity did not begin with the Trump administration .
Nor did the disdain for the rule of law .
Soviet authorities constructed facades of legal-looking procedures for trying dissidents in a highly politicized judicial system .
American authorities after the 9/11 attacks constructed charades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrantless surveillance , and imprisonment without trial .
Republicans , especially under Trump , are on a mission to politicize the federal courts , and Trump derides their independence .
The Soviet and Republican purposes are the same : to facilitate the machinery of the state .
One difference between Moscow and Washington is that while Soviet leaders were canny and closed , Trump is clumsy and explicit .
He has made no secret of his desire to have adversaries arrested—the whistleblower on Ukraine for “ treason , ” Vindman for “ insubordination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything .
These crude slanders have not yet been translated into legal assaults , but what if he wins a second term ?
He has gradually purged the White House and the Justice Department of officials devoted to the constitutional principles of law and the separation of powers .
As he accumulates a collection of adoring sycophants , he distills his inner circle into a concentrated toxin .
Trump has been most obvious among presidents in denouncing judges , obstructing investigations ( see the Mueller report ) , and interfering with prosecutors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department to rescind its tough sentencing recommendation for his pal Roger Stone .
Soviet authorities often determined sentencing behind closed doors in what Russians sardonically called “ telephone justice , ” a phone call between a judge and a Communist Party official .
By contrast , the American judge in Stone ’ s case , Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointee , can afford to be independent ; she needn ’ t curry favor with anyone , being too old ( 65 ) to be considered for elevation to a higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so is history .
Soviet archives were closed and secret , and the portrayal of history was distorted to hide wrongdoing and conform with current ideology .
The Trump administration is violating federal law by destroying documents required to be filed in the National Archives .
So American archives will now be incomplete , damaging historians ’ work .
Still , unlike the centralized Soviet Union , America ’ s pluralism retains diverse centers of authority , so that no single hand can dictate what citizens know of their country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessons of history seem to be running in reverse , at least to this old Moscow hand .
History is usually touted as informing the present , explaining current events in the context of what has gone before .
Now , the present is informing the past , as the Trump era illuminates authoritarian impulses in the Soviet Union and elsewhere .
It used to be conventional wisdom to see longstanding Russian culture—from the czars through the Communists—at the root of Russians ’ affinity for a strongman like Stalin ( and now Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens in the conspiracy of myths and lies and injustices .
But American culture has no such tradition .
Looking at the present Republican adulation of Trump , whose cult of personality would be nearly as dangerous as Stalin ’ s if the United States were not a constitutional democracy , we might be witnessing traits more universal in humanity than previously acknowledged .
During the liberalizing era of Mikhail Gorbachev , I heard this joke in the Kremlin : First Member of Parliament : “ What we need is a democracy like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament : “ It will never work here.
” Second Member : “ We don ’ t have enough Swedes.
” I used to think that you could substitute “ Americans ” for “ Swedes.
” Now I ’ m not so sure

The most stirring statement of any witness in the House impeachment hearings last fall came from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council, who opened his testimony with thanks and reassurance to his father, who had brought his family to the United States for “refuge from authoritarian oppression” in the Soviet Union.
“My simple act of appearing here today. would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing concern through the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. “I am grateful for my father’s bold act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant where I can live free of fear for my and my family’s safety. Dad, [that] I’m sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth.”
Did Colonel Vindman misread his adopted country?
After honoring a subpoena and testifying under oath on President Trump’s “inappropriate” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Vindman got death threats so alarming that the Army and local police had to provide security. The Army considered moving his family to safety on a military base. And last week, after being acquitted in his impeachment trial, an unleashed Trump had Vindman escorted out of the White House and then threatened him (by tweet) with unspecified military punishment. This was part of a widening pattern of retaliation by the Trump apparatus against impeachment witnesses and other independent thinkers in government.
The United States is not the Soviet Union, of course, and it’s a good bet that Vindman would never think it was. Furthermore, invidious analogies between Trump and various forms of authoritarianism—fascism, Nazism, third-world dictatorships—are so common that they have lost their bite. So it’s important to recognize that while the American constitutional system is under immense strain by Republicans impatient with its messy checks on their power, the restraints have not yet broken.
Nevertheless, to one who lived in Moscow from 1975 to 1979, there is a queasy taste of familiarity in the impulses of Trump and his Republican followers. There is a certain kind of political actor, whether Soviet or American, who cannot stand dissent and debate, who derides facts and truth, who sees all behavior through a lens of personal or ideological loyalty, and whose values extend no farther than immediate victory and the expansion of authority. In this mindset, truth-tellers are “enemies of the people,” to quote Stalin and Trump. Policy differences constitute warfare in which argument and rebuttal are not enough: Opponents must be destroyed through smears, propaganda, and retribution.
These actors have no moral brakes. They wield whatever weapons the system permits.
In the post-Stalinist Soviet system that I observed, the punishments for suspicions of political irreverence ranged from mild to severe: a formal denunciation by peers, a denial of promotion at work, a rejection of a coveted trip abroad, a job dismissal, a cutoff of your phone, even imprisonment or Siberian exile if your dissent was public and persistent. Certain positions—journalist, history professor, factory manager, hospital director, and the like—required membership in the Communist Party, which was highly selective and relied on proof of political reliability.
In the United States, Republicans under Trump—and earlier under George W. Bush—have imposed their own kind of political orthodoxy, conducting litmus tests on applicants for government jobs in the Justice Department and other agencies that are supposed to be non-political. As I wrote in the last chapter of The Rights of the People, Bush administration “applicants were asked ideologically charged questions: ‘What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?’ ‘Tell us about your political philosophy,’ whether you’re a ‘social conservative, fiscal conservative, [or] law and order Republican.’” Some in federal law enforcement were grilled on their views of abortion, their voting histories, and their favorite Supreme Court justices, all matters irrelevant to their jobs. Membership in the conservative Federalist Society was nearly as critical to getting hired in the Justice Department in Washington as membership in the Communist Party had been in Moscow.
So the impulse for ideological purity did not begin with the Trump administration. Nor did the disdain for the rule of law. Soviet authorities constructed facades of legal-looking procedures for trying dissidents in a highly politicized judicial system. American authorities after the 9/11 attacks constructed charades of legal rationalizations to permit torture, warrantless surveillance, and imprisonment without trial. Republicans, especially under Trump, are on a mission to politicize the federal courts, and Trump derides their independence. The Soviet and Republican purposes are the same: to facilitate the machinery of the state.
One difference between Moscow and Washington is that while Soviet leaders were canny and closed, Trump is clumsy and explicit. He has made no secret of his desire to have adversaries arrested—the whistleblower on Ukraine for “treason,” Vindman for “insubordination,” Hillary Clinton for just about anything. These crude slanders have not yet been translated into legal assaults, but what if he wins a second term? He has gradually purged the White House and the Justice Department of officials devoted to the constitutional principles of law and the separation of powers. As he accumulates a collection of adoring sycophants, he distills his inner circle into a concentrated toxin.
Trump has been most obvious among presidents in denouncing judges, obstructing investigations (see the Mueller report), and interfering with prosecutors, as this week when he got the Justice Department to rescind its tough sentencing recommendation for his pal Roger Stone. Soviet authorities often determined sentencing behind closed doors in what Russians sardonically called “telephone justice,” a phone call between a judge and a Communist Party official. By contrast, the American judge in Stone’s case, Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, can afford to be independent; she needn’t curry favor with anyone, being too old (65) to be considered for elevation to a higher court.
As the law is manipulated, so is history. Soviet archives were closed and secret, and the portrayal of history was distorted to hide wrongdoing and conform with current ideology. The Trump administration is violating federal law by destroying documents required to be filed in the National Archives. So American archives will now be incomplete, damaging historians’ work. Still, unlike the centralized Soviet Union, America’s pluralism retains diverse centers of authority, so that no single hand can dictate what citizens know of their country’s past.
In some respects, the lessons of history seem to be running in reverse, at least to this old Moscow hand. History is usually touted as informing the present, explaining current events in the context of what has gone before. Now, the present is informing the past, as the Trump era illuminates authoritarian impulses in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
It used to be conventional wisdom to see longstanding Russian culture—from the czars through the Communists—at the root of Russians’ affinity for a strongman like Stalin (and now Putin) and for the compliance of Soviet citizens in the conspiracy of myths and lies and injustices. But American culture has no such tradition. Looking at the present Republican adulation of Trump, whose cult of personality would be nearly as dangerous as Stalin’s if the United States were not a constitutional democracy, we might be witnessing traits more universal in humanity than previously acknowledged.
During the liberalizing era of Mikhail Gorbachev, I heard this joke in the Kremlin:
First Member of Parliament: “What we need is a democracy like Sweden’s.”
Second Member of Parliament: “It will never work here.”
First Member: “Why not?’
Second Member: “We don’t have enough Swedes.”
I used to think that you could substitute “Americans” for “Swedes.” Now I’m not so sure