Optics Over Substance

President Trump attempted on Monday to project calm control during yet another moment of national crisis .
He resorted to a speech threatening military action against American citizens and a photo op that projects shallowness and weakness .
In remarks from the White House Rose Garden on Monday evening , the president spoke about the uprisings that began as protests against police brutality following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 .
“ My administration is fully committed that , for George and his family , justice will be served .
He will not have died in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But we can not allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.
” The president ’ s effort to demonstrate strength and leadership came after he spent the previous night in a basement bunker while violence raged outside the White House with its exterior lights turned off .
But the Rose Garden address failed to provide the leadership this moment calls for .
In his desperation to appear strong he all but guaranteed there will be more destruction .
The answer to outcry over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive police violence .
And the speech wasn ’ t just a failure on the substance—it was also poorly executed and self-sabotaging .
Before the president came out to speak , peaceful protesters gathered on the north side of Lafayette Square—where the buildings were still covered in graffiti from the night before , when police beat back protesters with tear gas , flash bangs , and pepper spray .
Waiting for the president ’ s address , the protesters chanted “ Hands up don ’ t shoot , ” “ Take a knee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” At 6 p.m.—an hour before the curfew of 7 p.m. , newly instituted that day by Mayor Muriel Bowser—the D.C. National Guard joined police in riot gear on the other side of barriers erected along the Square .
It had been announced that the president would speak at 6:15 , but the Rose Garden podium remained empty .
At about 6:35 , the police began to fire tear gas and flash bangs against the crowd to clear the roads in front of Lafayette Square .
Police then charged the protesters , violently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within earshot of the reporters still waiting in the Rose Garden , who looked around as they heard the commotion .
It is under these conditions that the president finally walked out to deliver a speech in which he declared himself “ an ally of all peaceful protesters ” before then threatening to deploy the U.S. military if governors fail to end the riots : The networks broadcast these ominous remarks on a split screen : On one side , the president in the Rose Garden ; on the other , peaceful protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sirens were audible .
“ I am your president of law and order , ” Trump said .
In the moment , it was unclear why the protesters were being forcibly removed during the speech—again , they were peaceful and the curfew hadn ’ t yet begun .
Then , with his characteristic showman ’ s flair for suspense , Trump concluded by thanking America and saying , “ And now I ’ m going to pay my respects to a very , very special place.
” He left without clarifying where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , but it quickly became apparent that his intended destination was St. John ’ s Episcopal Church , the church just north of the Lafayette Square and the White House—which explained the violent rush to remove the crowd gathered there .
The previous night , the basement of the church was set on fire , although the blaze was extinguished before it could cause severe damage .
St. John ’ s Church “ supported the bold civil rights moments of the March on Washington , which began at the Lincoln Memorial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McEnany in her daily briefing earlier on Monday .
Burning the church “ doesn ’ t honor the legacy of George Floyd .
It doesn ’ t further the cause .
And those are violent anarchists , Antifa , who are taking advantage of the pain of people , the pain of the peaceful protesters.
” McEnany ’ s remarks denouncing those who have co-opted legitimate protests for derelict agendas are absolutely necessary and bear repeating .
But the president , too , co-opted the site of the church—for a lame , awkward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible by grotesque violence .
His idea of “ paying respects ” to the church was to stand in front of its boarded-up windows , holding a Bible while the cameras of the White House press corps captured the image .
The photo op may have achieved the president ’ s goal of projecting bravery to console his base and suggest that he would protect them .
But the means by which the photo was achieved—its incongruousness with the earlier image of protesters fleeing tear gas—weaken its integrity and reveal its cynical motivations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president doesn ’ t pull a Bible out of a Birkin bag and wave it around for cameras but instead takes the opportunity to kneel and pray for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in silence for and with the country .
Imagine a president capable of paying respects to anyone or anything .
During the first few days of protests , the lack of coherent and clear communication from the White House—beyond the usual torrent of ill-advised tweets—led to much hyperbolic language from the press about the potential use of military force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated the vacuum of uncertainty .
Many have faced a two-wave hold-down : the virus continues to disproportionately affect the black community both at home and economically .
George Floyd ’ s killing at the hands of the police was a third barrel .
Meanwhile , the president , consumed by his dependence on the economy and obsession with ratings does not understand the suffering of the people he has sworn to serve .
With the election five months away and Trump consistently trailing his opponent in the polls , instead of addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uprisings , he is grasping for control by pantomiming a strongman .
Monday ’ s Rose Garden address was a chance to answer and offer recompense to the protesters and all of those in agony after months of staggering loss and pain .
“ I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America , ” Trump said .
A statement that could have been followed by an acknowledgement of the protesters ’ cause , and an explicit promise to take demonstrable action to address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , the president spoke to the only audience he cares about : the 35 percent of Americans he can count on in November no matter what .
“ I am mobilizing all available federal resources—civilian and military—to stop the rioting and looting , to end the destruction and arson , and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans , ” he said , “ including your Second Amendment rights .
.
.
.
[ W ] e are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a response to peaceful protests to which he is supposedly an ally .
In fact , Trump himself did exactly what he said we should not do at the beginning of his speech : “ We can not allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.
” He let the peaceful protesters be drowned out : His comments address only the problem of those who have seized the moment for vice under the cloak of confusion and chaos .
Solely calling for an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the originating grievance .
It is not an end to the outpouring of grief from the black community and all those who stand along with them demanding justice and reform .
To address only the violence in this way is to ignore the righteous and reduce the demonstrations to the worst actors .
To refer at all to the Second Amendment can only be explained as a dog-whistle .
Where is the policy ?
Where is the East Room event for minority business owners affected by looters ?
Where is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families who have lost loved ones to police ?
On past occasions , the president has shown himself capable of listening .
The administration has made progress on prison reform—an obvious place to continue advancing civil rights protections .
But the gross inequalities of how justice is meted out in America begins before minorities and those caught in the crosshairs of police brutality are brought to jail—the president ’ s agenda should reflect that .
But why did it take Kim Kardashian ’ s voice to persuade the president and his policy advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice system ?
Celebrity activism should not have more impact on the White House policy agenda than thousands marching in the streets .
All this and the country has still not had a national moment of silence for the victims of COVID-19 .
You can hear the press coughing in the video of Trump crossing Lafayette Square on his self-aggrandizing journey to church .
Declaring the riots over without promising to address the underlying systemic issues will only prolong this era of American carnage .
In February we wrote that the coronavirus was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership where China had failed .
This is another , arguably greater opportunity for him to lead and effectuate lasting change and reform that advances the cause of justice , order , and sanctity of law .
An opportunity he has so far squandered .

President Trump attempted on Monday to project calm control during yet another moment of national crisis. He resorted to a speech threatening military action against American citizens and a photo op that projects shallowness and weakness.
In remarks from the White House Rose Garden on Monday evening, the president spoke about the uprisings that began as protests against police brutality following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25. “My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain,” the president began. “But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.” The president’s effort to demonstrate strength and leadership came after he spent the previous night in a basement bunker while violence raged outside the White House with its exterior lights turned off.
But the Rose Garden address failed to provide the leadership this moment calls for. In his desperation to appear strong he all but guaranteed there will be more destruction. The answer to outcry over the problem of police violence is not more aggressive police violence.
And the speech wasn’t just a failure on the substance—it was also poorly executed and self-sabotaging.
Before the president came out to speak, peaceful protesters gathered on the north side of Lafayette Square—where the buildings were still covered in graffiti from the night before, when police beat back protesters with tear gas, flash bangs, and pepper spray. Waiting for the president’s address, the protesters chanted “Hands up don’t shoot,” “Take a knee,” and “Lock them up.” At 6 p.m.—an hour before the curfew of 7 p.m., newly instituted that day by Mayor Muriel Bowser—the D.C. National Guard joined police in riot gear on the other side of barriers erected along the Square.
It had been announced that the president would speak at 6:15, but the Rose Garden podium remained empty. At about 6:35, the police began to fire tear gas and flash bangs against the crowd to clear the roads in front of Lafayette Square. Police then charged the protesters, violently beating them back.
All this happened within earshot of the reporters still waiting in the Rose Garden, who looked around as they heard the commotion. It is under these conditions that the president finally walked out to deliver a speech in which he declared himself “an ally of all peaceful protesters” before then threatening to deploy the U.S. military if governors fail to end the riots:
First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now. Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
The networks broadcast these ominous remarks on a split screen: On one side, the president in the Rose Garden; on the other, peaceful protesters running away from police. Loud bangs and sirens were audible.
“I am your president of law and order,” Trump said. In the moment, it was unclear why the protesters were being forcibly removed during the speech—again, they were peaceful and the curfew hadn’t yet begun. Then, with his characteristic showman’s flair for suspense, Trump concluded by thanking America and saying, “And now I’m going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.” He left without clarifying where that very, very special place might be, but it quickly became apparent that his intended destination was St. John’s Episcopal Church, the church just north of the Lafayette Square and the White House—which explained the violent rush to remove the crowd gathered there.
The previous night, the basement of the church was set on fire, although the blaze was extinguished before it could cause severe damage. St. John’s Church “supported the bold civil rights moments of the March on Washington, which began at the Lincoln Memorial,” said White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in her daily briefing earlier on Monday. Burning the church “doesn’t honor the legacy of George Floyd. It doesn’t further the cause. And those are violent anarchists, Antifa, who are taking advantage of the pain of people, the pain of the peaceful protesters.”
McEnany’s remarks denouncing those who have co-opted legitimate protests for derelict agendas are absolutely necessary and bear repeating. But the president, too, co-opted the site of the church—for a lame, awkward, and crass photo op, made possible by grotesque violence. His idea of “paying respects” to the church was to stand in front of its boarded-up windows, holding a Bible while the cameras of the White House press corps captured the image.
The photo op may have achieved the president’s goal of projecting bravery to console his base and suggest that he would protect them. But the means by which the photo was achieved—its incongruousness with the earlier image of protesters fleeing tear gas—weaken its integrity and reveal its cynical motivations.
Imagine a parallel universe in which the president doesn’t pull a Bible out of a Birkin bag and wave it around for cameras but instead takes the opportunity to kneel and pray for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in silence for and with the country. Imagine a president capable of paying respects to anyone or anything.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
During the first few days of protests, the lack of coherent and clear communication from the White House—beyond the usual torrent of ill-advised tweets—led to much hyperbolic language from the press about the potential use of military force to quell the protests. Fear has dominated the vacuum of uncertainty.
Many have faced a two-wave hold-down: the virus continues to disproportionately affect the black community both at home and economically. George Floyd’s killing at the hands of the police was a third barrel.
Meanwhile, the president, consumed by his dependence on the economy and obsession with ratings does not understand the suffering of the people he has sworn to serve. With the election five months away and Trump consistently trailing his opponent in the polls, instead of addressing the concerns and grievances that instigated the uprisings, he is grasping for control by pantomiming a strongman.
Monday’s Rose Garden address was a chance to answer and offer recompense to the protesters and all of those in agony after months of staggering loss and pain. “I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America,” Trump said. A statement that could have been followed by an acknowledgement of the protesters’ cause, and an explicit promise to take demonstrable action to address the problems of police brutality and systemic racism.
Instead, the president spoke to the only audience he cares about: the 35 percent of Americans he can count on in November no matter what. “I am mobilizing all available federal resources—civilian and military—to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans,” he said, “including your Second Amendment rights. . . . [W]e are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now.”
This was not a response to peaceful protests to which he is supposedly an ally. In fact, Trump himself did exactly what he said we should not do at the beginning of his speech: “We cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.” He let the peaceful protesters be drowned out: His comments address only the problem of those who have seized the moment for vice under the cloak of confusion and chaos. Solely calling for an end to the rioting and looting is a failure to address the originating grievance. It is not an end to the outpouring of grief from the black community and all those who stand along with them demanding justice and reform.
To address only the violence in this way is to ignore the righteous and reduce the demonstrations to the worst actors. To refer at all to the Second Amendment can only be explained as a dog-whistle.
Where is the policy? Where is the East Room event for minority business owners affected by looters? Where is the listening session in the Roosevelt Room with families who have lost loved ones to police?
On past occasions, the president has shown himself capable of listening. The administration has made progress on prison reform—an obvious place to continue advancing civil rights protections. But the gross inequalities of how justice is meted out in America begins before minorities and those caught in the crosshairs of police brutality are brought to jail—the president’s agenda should reflect that. But why did it take Kim Kardashian’s voice to persuade the president and his policy advisers to pay attention to abuse in the justice system? Celebrity activism should not have more impact on the White House policy agenda than thousands marching in the streets.
All this and the country has still not had a national moment of silence for the victims of COVID-19. You can hear the press coughing in the video of Trump crossing Lafayette Square on his self-aggrandizing journey to church.
Declaring the riots over without promising to address the underlying systemic issues will only prolong this era of American carnage.
In February we wrote that the coronavirus was an opportunity for the president to show leadership where China had failed. This is another, arguably greater opportunity for him to lead and effectuate lasting change and reform that advances the cause of justice, order, and sanctity of law. An opportunity he has so far squandered.


thebulwark--2020-06-02--Stand with Hong Kong

Stand with Hong Kong

China has never given a very strong impression that it respected the autonomy of Hong Kong , but lately it has dispensed with all discretion .
The previous arrangement , called “ one country , two systems , ” suddenly appears to be headed to oblivion .
A terrible and decisive moment is fast approaching—one that could determine the destiny and liberty of millions of Hongkongers , and the scope of China ’ s ambitions .
Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese authority in 1997 , but the former British colony was supposed to retain considerable autonomy for at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the Chinese Communist Party has meddled more and more in the territory ’ s affairs , and steadily eroded its liberties .
At this moment , Beijing seems intent on exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic—and the various preoccupations of the president of the American superpower—to negate the arrangement and assert its dominance over Hong Kong ’ s “ system ” once and for all .
There are at least two salient questions to ask about Hong Kong : First , what exactly is happening there ; and second , what , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It is not so difficult to sort out what is happening ; China appears to be in the beginning stages of undermining the status of Hong Kong as a semiautonomous city .
But it remains unclear what friends of that vulnerable city are actually doing or planning to do .
Let ’ s take these questions in order .
In open defiance of the Sino-British Joint Declaration that commits China to respecting Hong Kong ’ s autonomy and its common-law inheritance , the annual session of China ’ s rubber-stamp legislature has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminalize anti-Chinese politics in the enclave .
The draconian national security legislation equips Beijing to bypass the territory ’ s own parliament to crack down on any activity it deems seditious .
This undermines Hong Kong ’ s distinct liberal culture and its independent judiciary .
China ’ s attempted subversion of Hong Kong has reignited protests that reached a boil over last year ’ s now-revoked extradition bill .
Then , Hongkongers demonstrated against Beijing ’ s rule-by-diktat that sought the arrest and extradition of citizens to the Chinese mainland without recourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory .
After months of protests in which millions of Hong Kong citizens hoisted aloft the American flag and sang the American national anthem to signal their commitment to freedom , the Communist authorities in Beijing relented .
Unfortunately , this time may be different .
Even as pro-democracy demonstrators march in defense of their rights and liberties , Beijing maintains that a foreign plot is afoot to undermine the Communist Party .
( You ’ ll notice that this assertion is consistent with the Chinese propaganda narrative that the pandemic was conceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shore up its global primacy . )
Next week , on the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre , Hong Kong is even primed to pass a law stifling dissent of the Chinese regime .
Prison sentences will be handed down for any “ disrespect ” shown toward China ’ s national anthem .
In recognition of the fact that this move undermines Hong Kong ’ s distinct culture of free speech and its independent judiciary , Secretary of State Pompeo pronounced it a “ death knell ” for the city-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground ” show Hong Kong is no longer autonomous .
The State Department has thus certified that Hong Kong no longer warrants special treatment under U.S. law .
It is now up to President Trump to act on that certification by revoking the special trade status that Hong Kong has enjoyed since 1997 , which confers benefits such as an expedited visa process not extended to mainland China .
Meanwhile , the nationalistic Chinese newspaper Global Times—an organ of the CCP—has announced that this crisis will prove a “ death knell ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong affairs.
” The imposition of direct Communist Party rule upon Hong Kong is occurring against the backdrop of a distracted world and a new era of authoritarian assertiveness .
As I recently outlined in The Bulwark , the global progress toward free and open societies that had been a stupendous feature of the latter half of the twentieth century has stalled and reversed in the twenty-first .
If the Chinese authorities have their way , as seems very likely , Hong Kong will be the next victim in the authoritarian march @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communist Party ’ s grip on the territory can be loosened , let alone relinquished , without massive countervailing force .
Against such a behemoth imperial power that China has become––with a GDP nearing that of the United States––it is difficult to conceive of measures short of war that would salvage Hong Kong .
Nonetheless , painful consequences can be imposed on China .
After revoking Hong Kong ’ s special trade status , President Trump should impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on officials who abuse human rights in Hong Kong .
The U.S. government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British government , which has made the “ unprecedented ” pledge to expand visa rights for British National ( Overseas ) passport holders .
The Home Office has clarified that although only 350,000 Hong Kong residents hold valid BNO passports , the pledge will apply to anyone eligible and currently living in Hong Kong , of which there are nearly 3 million .
The United States ought to share some of the burden and glory of this initiative by opening its doors to Hong Kong ’ s huddled masses who yearn to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captive colony .
The gesture would signal solidarity with victims of a brutish tyranny while drawing into the American orbit citizens with surplus human capital and weaned on the language of liberty .
Alas , none of this will spare Hong Kong from the predations the Chinese Communist Party has in store for it .
But this crisis furnishes an opportunity to devise a coordinated strategy , involving not just the great and once-great powers of the West but also the free countries in the region itself , to contain Chinese influence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be based on a sober assessment of the limits of our power and the growth of Chinese power .
It must take stock of the risks and costs of warlike action , even as it understands that not just economic but military and diplomatic behavior will be needed to prevail in this new cold war .
It is impossible , on a shrewd analysis , to ignore the fundamentally divergent interests and beliefs between the People ’ s Republic and a world order based on liberty .
The strategic imperative in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand that although American-led alliances have suffered recently through malign neglect , they are not fated to diminish , and their value will endure .
Just as there is nothing ineluctable about the long-term continuation of the Pax Americana , the future of Asia must not be a matter for China ’ s dictatorship alone to decide .
It used to be said by anti-Communists behind the Iron Curtain that they were citizens of “ the West ” trapped in “ the East.
” The enterprising citizens of Hong Kong , nervously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , must be feeling the weight and force of that point more than ever .
Just as they have identified with our cause , we must strive to make their cause our own .

China has never given a very strong impression that it respected the autonomy of Hong Kong, but lately it has dispensed with all discretion. The previous arrangement, called “one country, two systems,” suddenly appears to be headed to oblivion. A terrible and decisive moment is fast approaching—one that could determine the destiny and liberty of millions of Hongkongers, and the scope of China’s ambitions.
Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese authority in 1997, but the former British colony was supposed to retain considerable autonomy for at least fifty years. Since the handover, however, the Chinese Communist Party has meddled more and more in the territory’s affairs, and steadily eroded its liberties. At this moment, Beijing seems intent on exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic—and the various preoccupations of the president of the American superpower—to negate the arrangement and assert its dominance over Hong Kong’s “system” once and for all.
There are at least two salient questions to ask about Hong Kong: First, what exactly is happening there; and second, what, if anything, can be done about it? It is not so difficult to sort out what is happening; China appears to be in the beginning stages of undermining the status of Hong Kong as a semiautonomous city. But it remains unclear what friends of that vulnerable city are actually doing or planning to do. Let’s take these questions in order.
In open defiance of the Sino-British Joint Declaration that commits China to respecting Hong Kong’s autonomy and its common-law inheritance, the annual session of China’s rubber-stamp legislature has passed new national security laws designed to criminalize anti-Chinese politics in the enclave. The draconian national security legislation equips Beijing to bypass the territory’s own parliament to crack down on any activity it deems seditious. This undermines Hong Kong’s distinct liberal culture and its independent judiciary.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
China’s attempted subversion of Hong Kong has reignited protests that reached a boil over last year’s now-revoked extradition bill. Then, Hongkongers demonstrated against Beijing’s rule-by-diktat that sought the arrest and extradition of citizens to the Chinese mainland without recourse to the legal protections afforded in the territory. After months of protests in which millions of Hong Kong citizens hoisted aloft the American flag and sang the American national anthem to signal their commitment to freedom, the Communist authorities in Beijing relented.
Unfortunately, this time may be different. Even as pro-democracy demonstrators march in defense of their rights and liberties, Beijing maintains that a foreign plot is afoot to undermine the Communist Party. (You’ll notice that this assertion is consistent with the Chinese propaganda narrative that the pandemic was conceived as a bioweapon by the United States to shore up its global primacy.) Next week, on the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Hong Kong is even primed to pass a law stifling dissent of the Chinese regime. Prison sentences will be handed down for any “disrespect” shown toward China’s national anthem.
In recognition of the fact that this move undermines Hong Kong’s distinct culture of free speech and its independent judiciary, Secretary of State Pompeo pronounced it a “death knell” for the city-state. He declared that “facts on the ground” show Hong Kong is no longer autonomous. The State Department has thus certified that Hong Kong no longer warrants special treatment under U.S. law. It is now up to President Trump to act on that certification by revoking the special trade status that Hong Kong has enjoyed since 1997, which confers benefits such as an expedited visa process not extended to mainland China.
Meanwhile, the nationalistic Chinese newspaper Global Times—an organ of the CCP—has announced that this crisis will prove a “death knell” only for “U.S. interference in Hong Kong affairs.”
The imposition of direct Communist Party rule upon Hong Kong is occurring against the backdrop of a distracted world and a new era of authoritarian assertiveness. As I recently outlined in The Bulwark, the global progress toward free and open societies that had been a stupendous feature of the latter half of the twentieth century has stalled and reversed in the twenty-first. If the Chinese authorities have their way, as seems very likely, Hong Kong will be the next victim in the authoritarian march.
It is fanciful to believe the Communist Party’s grip on the territory can be loosened, let alone relinquished, without massive countervailing force. Against such a behemoth imperial power that China has become––with a GDP nearing that of the United States––it is difficult to conceive of measures short of war that would salvage Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, painful consequences can be imposed on China. After revoking Hong Kong’s special trade status, President Trump should impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on officials who abuse human rights in Hong Kong. The U.S. government should also follow the lead of the British government, which has made the “unprecedented” pledge to expand visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders. The Home Office has clarified that although only 350,000 Hong Kong residents hold valid BNO passports, the pledge will apply to anyone eligible and currently living in Hong Kong, of which there are nearly 3 million. The United States ought to share some of the burden and glory of this initiative by opening its doors to Hong Kong’s huddled masses who yearn to continue breathing free outside of Beijing’s captive colony. The gesture would signal solidarity with victims of a brutish tyranny while drawing into the American orbit citizens with surplus human capital and weaned on the language of liberty.
Alas, none of this will spare Hong Kong from the predations the Chinese Communist Party has in store for it. But this crisis furnishes an opportunity to devise a coordinated strategy, involving not just the great and once-great powers of the West but also the free countries in the region itself, to contain Chinese influence and deter Chinese ambition. Such a strategy must be based on a sober assessment of the limits of our power and the growth of Chinese power. It must take stock of the risks and costs of warlike action, even as it understands that not just economic but military and diplomatic behavior will be needed to prevail in this new cold war.
It is impossible, on a shrewd analysis, to ignore the fundamentally divergent interests and beliefs between the People’s Republic and a world order based on liberty. The strategic imperative in this era of renewed great power competition is to understand that although American-led alliances have suffered recently through malign neglect, they are not fated to diminish, and their value will endure. Just as there is nothing ineluctable about the long-term continuation of the Pax Americana, the future of Asia must not be a matter for China’s dictatorship alone to decide.
It used to be said by anti-Communists behind the Iron Curtain that they were citizens of “the West” trapped in “the East.” The enterprising citizens of Hong Kong, nervously anticipating the future course of their city, must be feeling the weight and force of that point more than ever. Just as they have identified with our cause, we must strive to make their cause our own.


thebulwark--2020-06-02--COVID and Churches Go to the Supreme Court

On Friday evening a closely divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the state of California ’ s executive order—intended to avert spread of the novel coronavirus—which restricts occupancy in churches to 25 percent of building capacity or no more than 100 attendees .
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals to write for the majority , while Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a dissent joined by Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas .
( Samuel Alito also indicated his support for the challengers but did not explain why . )
The split illuminated divisions on the Court that we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming terms : Many conservatives have grown discontented with the Court ’ s modern regime on religious accommodation and want it overturned .
But it is not clear that the votes are there to accomplish this revolution .
Over the last 60 or so years liberals and conservatives have switched places on the question of religious accommodation .
Few foresaw this development .
At mid-century , it was the Court ’ s more liberal Justices , such as William Brennan , who championed the idea of a constitutional right to religious accommodation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases such as Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) —on unemployment compensation for workers who quit a job for religious reasons—and Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) —on whether compulsory school attendance laws could be applied to the Amish .
At length , in 1990 , the Court reversed course in the case of Employment Division v. Smith , penned by Justice Antonin Scalia .
That decision found that the Constitution does not , after all , require government to modify the application of laws where reasonably feasible in order to accommodate religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enough that government is enforcing a neutral and generally applicable law , even if doing so incidentally burdens religious belief—so long as the law is not drafted or applied so as to discriminate against religious practice or purposely harm it .
In a story by now familiar , the cause of religious accommodation—symbolized by the subsequent passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the federal level and mini-RFRAs in many states ( though not California ) —then changed political sides .
As conservative and orthodox religious thinkers began to feel more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to see RFRAs as one of the few defenses they had left .
At the same time , many liberal thinkers , concerned that accommodation could come at the expense of discrimination law , began backing off their support for the idea , at least in part .
The crux of the California dispute that the Court ruled on last week was whether the California rules were neutral , generally applicable , and not badly motivated—in which case the state would probably win—or if they discriminated against religion—which would lead them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For both Roberts and Kavanaugh , the question therefore was : Had California treated worship services neutrally with respect to comparable secular gatherings ?
Yes , it had , wrote Roberts in his brief opinion .
He noted that “ lectures , concerts , movie showings , spectator sports , and theatrical performances ” had all been put under restrictions at least as severe ( many in fact were closed down outright , rather than allowed partial operation as were churches ) .
Kavanaugh ’ s dissent reached instead for a less obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” For example , the occupancy restrictions had been more lenient toward “ retail stores , pharmacies , shopping malls , pet grooming shops , bookstores , florists , hair salons , and cannabis dispensaries.
” I ’ m not sure how this gets around Roberts ’ point for the majority that in churches , unlike in drugstores or pet grooming shops , “ large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.
” The point of a congregation is to congregate , no ?
And extended close contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for the virus to spread .
The wider problem is that even after 30 years , there is no real agreement on how to apply Smith .
To many judges , it amounts to what lawyers call a rational basis test .
Which is to say : the government wins so long as it has some non-crazy rationale for what it has done , even if its rules are overbroad or mistaken in some details .
To other judges , the Smith ruling suggests something stricter : Kavanaugh ’ s dissent reads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sort of most-favored-nation status , in which they are entitled to whatever are the best deals handed out to any entity and not merely lumped in with the likes of lecture halls and secular choir performances .
For two reasons the California case ’ s importance may be less than it appears .
First , Roberts ’ s language stresses the dispute ’ s early procedural posture : plaintiffs were asking for a quickie permanent injunction , and while they hadn ’ t met the heavy burden of proof needed for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy burden of requesting a stay while arguments unfold .
Furthermore , things may not reach that point because California and other states are likely to relax restrictions as the virus comes under control—and in so doing could render the controversy moot .
So long as courts restrict themselves to the question posed by Smith in its strong form—whether the state has laid arbitrary burdens on religion—plaintiffs are likely to face a heavy lift .
Religious gatherings of many faiths have been prominent spreader events for COVID-19 around the world .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that church congregations—the overwhelming majority of which have no wish to defy sound public health advice—deserve ample accommodation .
But for now , at least in states such as California that lack a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) , they may need to seek that accommodation through the political process .
Alternatively , this decision can be seen as a fight ( without saying so ) over whether Smith in strong form is still good law .
If you do see it that way , it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five votes on today ’ s Court to overturn it .

On Friday evening a closely divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the state of California’s executive order—intended to avert spread of the novel coronavirus—which restricts occupancy in churches to 25 percent of building capacity or no more than 100 attendees.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals to write for the majority, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a dissent joined by Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. (Samuel Alito also indicated his support for the challengers but did not explain why.) The split illuminated divisions on the Court that we are almost certain to hear more of in coming terms: Many conservatives have grown discontented with the Court’s modern regime on religious accommodation and want it overturned. But it is not clear that the votes are there to accomplish this revolution.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Over the last 60 or so years liberals and conservatives have switched places on the question of religious accommodation. Few foresaw this development.
At mid-century, it was the Court’s more liberal Justices, such as William Brennan, who championed the idea of a constitutional right to religious accommodation. They prevailed for a while, in cases such as Sherbert v. Verner (1963)—on unemployment compensation for workers who quit a job for religious reasons—and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)—on whether compulsory school attendance laws could be applied to the Amish.
At length, in 1990, the Court reversed course in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, penned by Justice Antonin Scalia. That decision found that the Constitution does not, after all, require government to modify the application of laws where reasonably feasible in order to accommodate religious believers’ practice. Instead, it is enough that government is enforcing a neutral and generally applicable law, even if doing so incidentally burdens religious belief—so long as the law is not drafted or applied so as to discriminate against religious practice or purposely harm it.
In a story by now familiar, the cause of religious accommodation—symbolized by the subsequent passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the federal level and mini-RFRAs in many states (though not California)—then changed political sides. As conservative and orthodox religious thinkers began to feel more under siege from the government, they came to see RFRAs as one of the few defenses they had left. At the same time, many liberal thinkers, concerned that accommodation could come at the expense of discrimination law, began backing off their support for the idea, at least in part.
The crux of the California dispute that the Court ruled on last week was whether the California rules were neutral, generally applicable, and not badly motivated—in which case the state would probably win—or if they discriminated against religion—which would lead them to flunk even the permissive Smith test. For both Roberts and Kavanaugh, the question therefore was: Had California treated worship services neutrally with respect to comparable secular gatherings?
Yes, it had, wrote Roberts in his brief opinion. He noted that “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances” had all been put under restrictions at least as severe (many in fact were closed down outright, rather than allowed partial operation as were churches).
Kavanaugh’s dissent reached instead for a less obviously parallel set of “comparable secular businesses.” For example, the occupancy restrictions had been more lenient toward “retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.”
I’m not sure how this gets around Roberts’ point for the majority that in churches, unlike in drugstores or pet grooming shops, “large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” The point of a congregation is to congregate, no? And extended close contact in enclosed settings is the most common way for the virus to spread.
The wider problem is that even after 30 years, there is no real agreement on how to apply Smith. To many judges, it amounts to what lawyers call a rational basis test. Which is to say: the government wins so long as it has some non-crazy rationale for what it has done, even if its rules are overbroad or mistaken in some details. To other judges, the Smith ruling suggests something stricter: Kavanaugh’s dissent reads like a call for churches to get a sort of most-favored-nation status, in which they are entitled to whatever are the best deals handed out to any entity and not merely lumped in with the likes of lecture halls and secular choir performances.
For two reasons the California case’s importance may be less than it appears. First, Roberts’s language stresses the dispute’s early procedural posture: plaintiffs were asking for a quickie permanent injunction, and while they hadn’t met the heavy burden of proof needed for that, they might still carry the less heavy burden of requesting a stay while arguments unfold. Furthermore, things may not reach that point because California and other states are likely to relax restrictions as the virus comes under control—and in so doing could render the controversy moot.
So long as courts restrict themselves to the question posed by Smith in its strong form—whether the state has laid arbitrary burdens on religion—plaintiffs are likely to face a heavy lift.
Religious gatherings of many faiths have been prominent spreader events for COVID-19 around the world. As a policy matter you can make a reasonable case that church congregations—the overwhelming majority of which have no wish to defy sound public health advice—deserve ample accommodation. But for now, at least in states such as California that lack a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), they may need to seek that accommodation through the political process.
Alternatively, this decision can be seen as a fight (without saying so) over whether Smith in strong form is still good law.
If you do see it that way, it could be a sign that there are not five votes on today’s Court to overturn it.


It’s a Set Up

“ It ’ s people that look like me that are dying , not these white anarchist people fucking shit up just so they can fuck shit up.
” Things have been poised to explode and the black community has been set up for the fall .
Again .
A masked white man with a hammer strolling along a sidewalk smashing windows in Minneapolis .
A white arsonist photographed in Nashville trying to burn down the historic courthouse .
Pallets of bricks conveniently left for black protesters in front of a courthouse in Dallas or at Second Avenue and St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It doesn ’ t matter whether it ’ s alt-right terrorists or entitled millennial Marxists or saboteurs taking direction from a troll farm in Saint Petersburg .
The first are racists hellbent on destroying black communities .
The second are thugs who borrow victimhood from communities with real suffering , who distort , pervert , and toxify what was never theirs to begin with .
The third is a foreign government violating us once more in an attempt to get us to kill one another .
Time will tell who is behind this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
What matters right now is who will pay .
Guess who always pays ?
Guess who has to fight everyone else on the way to the real battle for survival ?
The black protesters filming white thugs destroying storefronts and screaming for them to stop .
Pleading with white vandals to stop spray-painting , stop defacing cop cars , stop lighting stores on fire .
Grabbing a professional saboteur to turn him over to the cops , almost getting pulled into the fray themselves .
They are literally shouting for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whites .
.
.
in the middle of demonstrations over the killing of a black man .
Because they know the cost .
They know that what we will see emerge from the relentless crush of 24-7 coverage is footage of black rioters .
Young black men on the streets acting out their rage in unacceptable ways .
Blacks looting .
I get it .
No one can make you pick up a brick .
No one can make you join in .
But remember this : In a time of excruciating pain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and again that they didn ’ t kneel right or march right , that the venue was wrong or the timing was wrong , that their fear and frustration didn ’ t make for good political strategy , when they were at a breaking point after generations of injustice and 8 minutes and 46 seconds of “ I can ’ t breathe ” .
.
.
.
.
.
that outsiders showed up to hijack their grieving and their protest and literally brought tools of destruction , started mayhem , and instigated violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the most valuable thing we can decide now is where we put our attention .
Do we listen to Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms ?
Do we listen to the black police chiefs , business owners , reverends , community organizers , mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who are the overwhelming majority of protesters making clear that they are not anarchists , not agents of chaos , not looters and rioters ?
That they embody the same American values that we do because they are just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we let the media attention , political attention , our attention go where it always does ?
And use that as an excuse , once again , to not listen to what our fellow citizens are trying to tell us ?
This will come down like hell on black communities .
They are the canaries in the coal mine of American tragedies .
When things devolve and polarize , black Americans pay the price first , and most often .
Their voices get shut down .
Their voting booths go away .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ways we can ’ t imagine .
In courts and in jails and in morgues and in smoldering neighborhoods .
The least we can do is pay attention .

“It’s people that look like me that are dying, not these white anarchist people fucking shit up just so they can fuck shit up.”
—Noah Crow-Saba
It’s a setup.
Things have been poised to explode and the black community has been set up for the fall. Again.
A masked white man with a hammer strolling along a sidewalk smashing windows in Minneapolis.
A white arsonist photographed in Nashville trying to burn down the historic courthouse.
White nationalists infiltrating peaceful protests in Lancaster.
A white kid vandalizing a police vehicle in Pittsburgh.
A professional Caucasian agitator destroying a street corner in D.C.
Pallets of bricks conveniently left for black protesters in front of a courthouse in Dallas or at Second Avenue and St. Mark’s Place in Manhattan.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s alt-right terrorists or entitled millennial Marxists or saboteurs taking direction from a troll farm in Saint Petersburg. The first are racists hellbent on destroying black communities. The second are thugs who borrow victimhood from communities with real suffering, who distort, pervert, and toxify what was never theirs to begin with. The third is a foreign government violating us once more in an attempt to get us to kill one another.
Time will tell who is behind this. It doesn’t matter right now. What matters right now is who will pay.
Guess who always pays? Guess who has to fight everyone else on the way to the real battle for survival?
The black protesters filming white thugs destroying storefronts and screaming for them to stop. Pleading with white vandals to stop spray-painting, stop defacing cop cars, stop lighting stores on fire. Grabbing a professional saboteur to turn him over to the cops, almost getting pulled into the fray themselves. They are literally shouting for the violence to stop . . . to whites . . . in the middle of demonstrations over the killing of a black man.
Because they know the cost.
They know that what we will see emerge from the relentless crush of 24-7 coverage is footage of black rioters. Young black men on the streets acting out their rage in unacceptable ways. Blacks looting.
I get it. No one can make you pick up a brick. No one can make you join in.
But remember this: In a time of excruciating pain after the black community was told again and again that they didn’t kneel right or march right, that the venue was wrong or the timing was wrong, that their fear and frustration didn’t make for good political strategy, when they were at a breaking point after generations of injustice and 8 minutes and 46 seconds of “I can’t breathe”. . .
. . . that outsiders showed up to hijack their grieving and their protest and literally brought tools of destruction, started mayhem, and instigated violence with cops.
Amid all this chaos, the most valuable thing we can decide now is where we put our attention.
Do we listen to Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms? Do we listen to the black police chiefs, business owners, reverends, community organizers, mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who are the overwhelming majority of protesters making clear that they are not anarchists, not agents of chaos, not looters and rioters? That they embody the same American values that we do because they are just as American as we are?
Or do we let the media attention, political attention, our attention go where it always does? And use that as an excuse, once again, to not listen to what our fellow citizens are trying to tell us?
This will come down like hell on black communities. They are the canaries in the coal mine of American tragedies. When things devolve and polarize, black Americans pay the price first, and most often. Their voices get shut down. Their voting booths go away. Their children get killed.
They will pay in ways we can’t imagine. In courts and in jails and in morgues and in smoldering neighborhoods.
The least we can do is pay attention.
Don’t be fooled.
Don’t look away.
It’s a setup.


thebulwark--2020-06-02--Trump’s Insurrection Act Threat

Trump’s Insurrection Act Threat

On Monday , President Trump announced that he is “ mobilizing all available federal resources , civilian and military , to stop the rioting and looting .
.
.
and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans , including your Second Amendment rights.
” This came in response to the widespread riots prompted by the brutal videotaped killing of George Floyd , an unarmed black man , by a white police officer and his bystander comrades in Minneapolis on May 25 .
The authority cited for Trump ’ s pledge is a statute known as the Insurrection Act , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and amended since—suggesting that it is not an arcane artifact of history but a serious tool of presidential power .
The statute provides that “ the President , by using the militia or the armed forces , or both , or by any other means , shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress , in a State , any insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy ” if one of two conditions exist : an insurrection or domestic violence makes it hard to enforce federal law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hard to enforce state law in a way that hinders the rights of “ any part or class of its people.
” The president must first make a proclamation telling the “ insurgents ” to disperse and peaceably go home .
A few things to keep in mind here : First , an important Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of the president to act in emergencies would not apply in these circumstances .
In the famous case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer , President Truman ’ s attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Korean War was struck down by the Court .
Unlike Truman , who argued that his executive order was justified by his inherent Article II power , Trump would be acting pursuant to a statute giving him powers to quash insurrections with armed forces .
If the Insurrection Act itself is constitutional—which it likely is , having been used several times since 1807—Trump can use it .
Second , however , Trump and executive branch personnel acting on his orders can not use the statute to infringe on other parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only black people , that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment—although that would not mean much if Congress didn ’ t sanction Trump for violations .
Third , there is another statute , the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 , that expressly limits the powers of the federal government to use the federal military to enforce civilian law , but it doesn ’ t do much work here .
This prohibition applies “ except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by .
.
.
[ an ] Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Insurrection Act supersedes the Posse Comitatus Act .
And Article IV of the Constitution provides that “ the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government , and shall protect each of them against invasion [ and ] against domestic violence , ” so it seems to envision that the federal government could assist the states in quelling domestic riots .
Fourth , it is nonetheless a bedrock American tradition that military involvement in civilian affairs is abhorrent in the main .
The tradition antedates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be traced back to the Magna Carta , which declared in 1215 that “ no free man shall be .
.
.
imprisoned .
.
.
or in any other way destroyed .
.
.
except by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
” Military rule is out .
The question becomes how to strike the proper balance .
A president ’ s use of the Insurrection Act to stem widespread chaos and possible carnage is acceptable .
Using the military for an unnecessary , potentially bloody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their civilian populations is not .
Two hundred fifty years ago , on March 5 , 1770 , a riot occurred in Boston when American colonists attacked British soldiers .
What began as an altercation with a single soldier mushroomed into more than 2,000 British troops occupying a city of 16,000 , and numerous civilian deaths .
John Adams represented the British officer and his eight soldiers at trial , two of whom were found guilty of manslaughter .
One lesson of the Boston Massacre is that there ’ s a difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect against marauding invaders and the use of military force to police outraged citizens .
It ’ s too soon to tell whether Trump ’ s threat is necessary and appropriate or whether it will only further stoke racial divisions—possibly with the ultimate effect of entrenching Trump ’ s power .
For now , the backdrop of his announcement is telling .
Minutes before the mandatory 7 p.m. curfew fell on Washington , D.C. , authorities began tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators to clear Lafayette Park in front of the White House .
The heavy-handedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of facilitating Trump ’ s pomp as he lumbered across the street to St. John ’ s Episcopal Church where he posed for pictures , awkwardly holding a Bible .
With the Insurrection Act , Congress appears to have given Trump the power he now brandishes as a stick over America .
The only reliable way to temper that power is at the ballot box .

On Monday, President Trump announced that he is “mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting . . . and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.” This came in response to the widespread riots prompted by the brutal videotaped killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, by a white police officer and his bystander comrades in Minneapolis on May 25.
The authority cited for Trump’s pledge is a statute known as the Insurrection Act, which dates from 1807 and has been used and amended since—suggesting that it is not an arcane artifact of history but a serious tool of presidential power. The statute provides that “the President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if one of two conditions exist: an insurrection or domestic violence makes it hard to enforce federal law, or an insurrection or domestic violence makes it hard to enforce state law in a way that hinders the rights of “any part or class of its people.” The president must first make a proclamation telling the “insurgents” to disperse and peaceably go home.
A few things to keep in mind here:
First, an important Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of the president to act in emergencies would not apply in these circumstances. In the famous case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, President Truman’s attempt to take over the steel mills during the Korean War was struck down by the Court. Unlike Truman, who argued that his executive order was justified by his inherent Article II power, Trump would be acting pursuant to a statute giving him powers to quash insurrections with armed forces. If the Insurrection Act itself is constitutional—which it likely is, having been used several times since 1807—Trump can use it.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Second, however, Trump and executive branch personnel acting on his orders cannot use the statute to infringe on other parts of the Constitution. So if troops rounded up only black people, that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment—although that would not mean much if Congress didn’t sanction Trump for violations.
Third, there is another statute, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, that expressly limits the powers of the federal government to use the federal military to enforce civilian law, but it doesn’t do much work here. This prohibition applies “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by . . . [an] Act of Congress,” which indicates that the Insurrection Act supersedes the Posse Comitatus Act. And Article IV of the Constitution provides that “the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion [and] against domestic violence,” so it seems to envision that the federal government could assist the states in quelling domestic riots.
Fourth, it is nonetheless a bedrock American tradition that military involvement in civilian affairs is abhorrent in the main. The tradition antedates the United States; the principle can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which declared in 1215 that “no free man shall be . . . imprisoned . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Military rule is out.
The question becomes how to strike the proper balance. A president’s use of the Insurrection Act to stem widespread chaos and possible carnage is acceptable. Using the military for an unnecessary, potentially bloody intrusion into the affairs of individual states and their civilian populations is not.
Two hundred fifty years ago, on March 5, 1770, a riot occurred in Boston when American colonists attacked British soldiers. What began as an altercation with a single soldier mushroomed into more than 2,000 British troops occupying a city of 16,000, and numerous civilian deaths. John Adams represented the British officer and his eight soldiers at trial, two of whom were found guilty of manslaughter.
One lesson of the Boston Massacre is that there’s a difference between the use of military force to protect against marauding invaders and the use of military force to police outraged citizens. It’s too soon to tell whether Trump’s threat is necessary and appropriate or whether it will only further stoke racial divisions—possibly with the ultimate effect of entrenching Trump’s power.
For now, the backdrop of his announcement is telling. Minutes before the mandatory 7 p.m. curfew fell on Washington, D.C., authorities began tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators to clear Lafayette Park in front of the White House. The heavy-handedness was used against innocent civilians for purposes of facilitating Trump’s pomp as he lumbered across the street to St. John’s Episcopal Church where he posed for pictures, awkwardly holding a Bible.
With the Insurrection Act, Congress appears to have given Trump the power he now brandishes as a stick over America. The only reliable way to temper that power is at the ballot box.


thebulwark--2020-06-03--Trump Should Put Down the Bible, Open It, and Read

The Bible is not a prop .
Yet the president used it in front of St. John ’ s Church across from the White House on Monday to burnish his image with evangelical voters , whose support has waned since the administration ’ s inept response to COVID-19 .
On Tuesday , he trekked to the National Shrine of St. John Paul II with a similar aim of mollifying Catholic voters who have grown disillusioned with his rhetoric and divisiveness .
The president ’ s naked political manipulation drew quick rebukes from the Episcopal Bishop of Washington , in whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the Roman Catholic Archbishop .
The Right Rev .
Mariann Budde said the president is welcome to sit and pray at St. John ’ s but “ is not entitled to use the spiritual symbolism of our sacred spaces and our sacred texts to promote or to justify a completely different message.
” Archbishop Wilton Gregory of the Catholic archdiocese of Washington , D.C. , said he found it “ baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call us to defend the rights of all people , even those with whom we might disagree.
” The shrine is owned by the Knights of Columbus , a lay fraternal order .
These publicity stunts reveal Donald Trump ’ s total ignorance of Christian teaching and the life of Jesus Christ .
Had Trump opened the Bible he brandished in front of St. John ’ s , he would have read Christ ’ s admonition in the Sermon on the Mount : “ You have heard it said , ‘ Thou shalt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy , but I say to you , love your enemies , do good to those who hate you and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you , so that you may be children of your Father in heaven who makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil , and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
” Trump ’ s instinct is to dominate , to crush , to “ punch him in the face.
” Trump ’ s entire life is a repudiation of the Gospels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtues—prudence , temperance , fortitude , and justice—and shows little adherence to the theological virtues of faith , hope , and charity .
We see him at church when he wants to send a political message .
He chose to spend the first Sunday after ordering governors to open churches on the golf course instead of in the pews , but dispersed peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square with police in riot gear shooting tear gas and rubber bullets so he could walk to St. John ’ s for a photo op .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : pride , greed , wrath , envy , lust , gluttony , and sloth .
He takes credit for anything that might bring him glory , slapping his name on everything from hotels and condominiums to the checks appropriated by Congress to alleviate the economic suffering of Americans during the pandemic .
He cheats people with phony universities and get-rich-quick schemes .
He calls women pigs , tells police , “ when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon , you just see them thrown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t be too nice.
” He envies moral strength and leadership among figures like John McCain , yet longs for the power of those who rule by force like Vladimir Putin .
His multiple marriages , affairs , and sexual assaults reflect not masculinity but misogyny .
He is too lazy to master the art of governing and surrounds himself with sycophants who are willing to do anything he asks .
Religious Americans do not ask their leaders to be sinless—none of us is , though Trump has declared he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s forgiveness .
But if the articles of our faith—whatever our religion—teach us anything , it is to recognize a power higher than ourselves , higher than self-interest , higher even than civil authority to guide our lives .
We should seek the good , not the advantageous .
We should ask that our leaders teach by example to honor human dignity , not degrade it .
“ Beware of false prophets , ” Jesus warned .
“ By their fruits you will know them .
.
.
.
A good tree can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad tree bear good fruit.
” Trump may try to hide his moral rot behind a Bible , but his actions speak for themselves .

The Bible is not a prop. Yet the president used it in front of St. John’s Church across from the White House on Monday to burnish his image with evangelical voters, whose support has waned since the administration’s inept response to COVID-19. On Tuesday, he trekked to the National Shrine of St. John Paul II with a similar aim of mollifying Catholic voters who have grown disillusioned with his rhetoric and divisiveness.
The president’s naked political manipulation drew quick rebukes from the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, in whose diocese St. John’s sits, as well as the Roman Catholic Archbishop. The Right Rev. Mariann Budde said the president is welcome to sit and pray at St. John’s but “is not entitled to use the spiritual symbolism of our sacred spaces and our sacred texts to promote or to justify a completely different message.” Archbishop Wilton Gregory of the Catholic archdiocese of Washington, D.C., said he found it “baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people, even those with whom we might disagree.” The shrine is owned by the Knights of Columbus, a lay fraternal order.
These publicity stunts reveal Donald Trump’s total ignorance of Christian teaching and the life of Jesus Christ. Had Trump opened the Bible he brandished in front of St. John’s, he would have read Christ’s admonition in the Sermon on the Mount: “You have heard it said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor and shalt hate thy enemy, but I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven who makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” Trump’s instinct is to dominate, to crush, to “punch him in the face.”
Trump’s entire life is a repudiation of the Gospels. He embodies none of the cardinal virtues—prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice—and shows little adherence to the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. We see him at church when he wants to send a political message. He chose to spend the first Sunday after ordering governors to open churches on the golf course instead of in the pews, but dispersed peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square with police in riot gear shooting tear gas and rubber bullets so he could walk to St. John’s for a photo op.
Trump is the embodiment of the Deadly Sins: pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth. He takes credit for anything that might bring him glory, slapping his name on everything from hotels and condominiums to the checks appropriated by Congress to alleviate the economic suffering of Americans during the pandemic. He cheats people with phony universities and get-rich-quick schemes. He calls women pigs, tells police, “when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice.” He envies moral strength and leadership among figures like John McCain, yet longs for the power of those who rule by force like Vladimir Putin. His multiple marriages, affairs, and sexual assaults reflect not masculinity but misogyny. He is too lazy to master the art of governing and surrounds himself with sycophants who are willing to do anything he asks.
Religious Americans do not ask their leaders to be sinless—none of us is, though Trump has declared he has nothing for which to ask God’s forgiveness. But if the articles of our faith—whatever our religion—teach us anything, it is to recognize a power higher than ourselves, higher than self-interest, higher even than civil authority to guide our lives. We should seek the good, not the advantageous. We should ask that our leaders teach by example to honor human dignity, not degrade it.
“Beware of false prophets,” Jesus warned. “By their fruits you will know them. . . . A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” Trump may try to hide his moral rot behind a Bible, but his actions speak for themselves.


thebulwark--2020-06-03--A Tale of Two Church Visits

A Tale of Two Church Visits

Both President Trump and Joe Biden visited churches on Monday—though “ visit ” is a poor descriptor of what Trump did .
Consistent with his life pattern , he didn ’ t actually enter a church .
Rather , he positioned his body in front of St. John ’ s Episcopal and held a Bible aloft , like a trophy , for the cameras .
Asked if it was his Bible , he answered “ It ’ s a Bible.
” Well , score one for candor .
Though in the physical vicinity of a place of worship , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his thoughts as he brandished the book he has never read , he defaulted to rally slogans : “ We have a great country , and it ’ s going to be even greater .
And it won ’ t take long .
It ’ s coming back strong .
.
.
stronger than ever before.
” No , the nation is weaker than ever before—beset by a rampant epidemic , an economic shock of unprecedented severity , and widespread rioting .
Sixty million Americans are under curfew .
We are racked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual suspicion .
Trust in institutions and even in the democratic process itself are at record low levels .
We are whipsawed by rumors and conspiracy theories .
The percentage of people who say they are “ extremely proud ” to be Americans has declined from 70 percent of the country in 2003 to 45 percent today .
With a mixture of terror and horror , Americans are watching wanton violence sweep the nation , and while they sympathize with the peaceful protesters , they are appalled at the breakdown of order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s leader , they find only an arsonist .
If ever there were a moment that called for genuine prayer and reflection , this is it .
As Hannah Yoest writes nearby : St. John ’ s was closed and boarded up after one of the marauders set a fire ( quickly extinguished ) in the basement .
Instead of staging a photo op in front of the building , Trump could have requested that the church be opened .
He could have invited black pastors , mayors , members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service where God ’ s mercy was humbly beseeched .
He could have found inspiration in this prayer offered by George H.W .
Bush at his inaugural : A little humility would go a long way toward pacifying the terrible cycle we ’ re in .
In fact , the president ’ s fear of seeming weak is proving an accelerant to the chaos .
He responded to the deliberate strangulation of George Floyd with a few pro forma statements of concern .
This was followed by furious threats of “ thousands and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crush “ lawlessness.
” On a phone call with governors on Monday , Trump expressed no outrage over Floyd , but he did thunder that the governors risked looking “ like fools.
” Earlier in the week , frightened by protesters outside the White House , the president broadcast his id to the world , tweeting that “ nobody came close to breaching the fence .
If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs , and most ominous weapons , I have ever seen .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt , at least.
” He practically invited his supporters to confront the protesters in Lafayette Square adjacent to the White House : “ Tonight , I understand , is MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE ?
?
?
” Worst of all , he tweeted a 1960s racist taunt from a Miami police chief : “ When the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Across the nation , some law enforcement officers are demonstrating grace in the midst of this mayhem .
Police in Santa Cruz , California took a knee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers held hands with marchers .
In New York City , police applauded protesters .
And in Flint , Michigan , the county sheriff and his men joined the demonstration .
This reflects the widespread awareness that what happened to George Floyd was an atrocity and also that rioters exploiting the situation do not vitiate the horror of what was done .
It is not weakness to recognize the need for reform in how police treat black suspects .
It is simple justice .
Of course , no civilized society can tolerate widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and marauders are opportunists .
Without the cover of genuine protesters thronging the streets , their lawlessness would stand naked .
What would defuse the situation so that protesters could disband in good conscience ?
They need respect .
They need to believe that reform is coming .
Vast majorities of Americans are on their side .
And yet , the message they are getting from the White House is one of contempt .
The president speaks of “ dominating ” the protests .
His secretary of defense talks of treating America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president openly fantasizes about the Secret Service hurting people assembled outside in protest : “ Many Secret Service agents just waiting for action , ” Trump tweeted as he quaked in his bunker , appending a quotation supposedly from a Secret Service source : “ We put the young ones on the front line , sir , they love it , and .
.
.
good practice.
” It ’ s a lie , of course .
Secret Service professionals don ’ t talk like that .
But the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Every tough-guy utterance from the administration in the midst of these roiling passions puts reconciliation further out of reach .
The seams of this nation are tearing because of his malfeasance .
Nor is it a matter only of the wrong words .
Peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park were attacked on the president ’ s behalf .
National Guard and other units used tear gas , rubber bullets , flash-bang grenades , and mounted police to drive them from the park a half hour before curfew so that the path would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the street to St. John ’ s .
A few moments later , he had the gall to say that he was on the side of “ all peaceful demonstrators.
” The point of all these military actions he is threatening ?
The peace and security of the American people ?
Maybe .
But first and foremost , your “ Second Amendment rights.
” As for the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble ?
That ’ s dispensable , apparently .
Joe Biden actually entered a church on Monday , the Bethel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware .
It wasn ’ t a prayer service , but a meeting with faith leaders .
Biden listened for over an hour .
He took notes .
He heard criticism of the 1994 crime bill he had done so much to pass .
When it was his turn to speak , Biden asked for a moment of prayer .
He invoked Kierkegaard : He quoted the philosopher to the effect that “ Faith sees best in the dark , ” adding “ And it ’ s been pretty dark.
” He promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously , and mentioned that it is not limited to white officers .
When the time came for a photo op , Biden chose to drop to one knee .
It wasn ’ t spectacular .
It wasn ’ t the sort of thing you ’ d share on social media ( though it deserved more coverage on traditional media ) .
It wasn ’ t Biden “ owning ” anybody .
He didn ’ t break any new ground or say anything especially quotable .
It was just quiet decency .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be again .

Both President Trump and Joe Biden visited churches on Monday—though “visit” is a poor descriptor of what Trump did. Consistent with his life pattern, he didn’t actually enter a church. Rather, he positioned his body in front of St. John’s Episcopal and held a Bible aloft, like a trophy, for the cameras. Asked if it was his Bible, he answered “It’s a Bible.” Well, score one for candor.
Though in the physical vicinity of a place of worship, Trump betrayed no trace of piety. Asked his thoughts as he brandished the book he has never read, he defaulted to rally slogans: “We have a great country, and it’s going to be even greater. And it won’t take long. It’s coming back strong . . . stronger than ever before.”
No, the nation is weaker than ever before—beset by a rampant epidemic, an economic shock of unprecedented severity, and widespread rioting. Sixty million Americans are under curfew. We are racked by racial strife, bitter polarization, and mutual suspicion. Trust in institutions and even in the democratic process itself are at record low levels. We are whipsawed by rumors and conspiracy theories. The percentage of people who say they are “extremely proud” to be Americans has declined from 70 percent of the country in 2003 to 45 percent today. With a mixture of terror and horror, Americans are watching wanton violence sweep the nation, and while they sympathize with the peaceful protesters, they are appalled at the breakdown of order. Yet, when they turn to the nation’s leader, they find only an arsonist.
If ever there were a moment that called for genuine prayer and reflection, this is it. As Hannah Yoest writes nearby:
Imagine a parallel universe in which the president doesn’t pull a Bible out of a Birkin bag and wave it around for cameras but instead takes the opportunity to kneel and pray for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in silence for and with the country. Imagine a president capable of paying respects to anyone or anything.
St. John’s was closed and boarded up after one of the marauders set a fire (quickly extinguished) in the basement. Instead of staging a photo op in front of the building, Trump could have requested that the church be opened. He could have invited black pastors, mayors, members of Congress, and others to a worship service where God’s mercy was humbly beseeched. He could have found inspiration in this prayer offered by George H.W. Bush at his inaugural:
Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord.
A little humility would go a long way toward pacifying the terrible cycle we’re in. In fact, the president’s fear of seeming weak is proving an accelerant to the chaos. He responded to the deliberate strangulation of George Floyd with a few pro forma statements of concern. This was followed by furious threats of “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers” to crush “lawlessness.” On a phone call with governors on Monday, Trump expressed no outrage over Floyd, but he did thunder that the governors risked looking “like fools.” Earlier in the week, frightened by protesters outside the White House, the president broadcast his id to the world, tweeting that “nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least.” He practically invited his supporters to confront the protesters in Lafayette Square adjacent to the White House: “Tonight, I understand, is MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE???” Worst of all, he tweeted a 1960s racist taunt from a Miami police chief: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Across the nation, some law enforcement officers are demonstrating grace in the midst of this mayhem. Police in Santa Cruz, California took a knee with protesters. In North Dakota, officers held hands with marchers. In New York City, police applauded protesters. And in Flint, Michigan, the county sheriff and his men joined the demonstration.
This reflects the widespread awareness that what happened to George Floyd was an atrocity and also that rioters exploiting the situation do not vitiate the horror of what was done. It is not weakness to recognize the need for reform in how police treat black suspects. It is simple justice.
Of course, no civilized society can tolerate widespread rioting and looting. But the rioters and marauders are opportunists. Without the cover of genuine protesters thronging the streets, their lawlessness would stand naked. What would defuse the situation so that protesters could disband in good conscience? They need respect. They need to believe that reform is coming. Vast majorities of Americans are on their side. And yet, the message they are getting from the White House is one of contempt. The president speaks of “dominating” the protests. His secretary of defense talks of treating America’s streets as a “battlespace.” The president openly fantasizes about the Secret Service hurting people assembled outside in protest: “Many Secret Service agents just waiting for action,” Trump tweeted as he quaked in his bunker, appending a quotation supposedly from a Secret Service source: “We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and . . . good practice.”
It’s a lie, of course. Secret Service professionals don’t talk like that. But the president’s personal demons are all of ours now. Every tough-guy utterance from the administration in the midst of these roiling passions puts reconciliation further out of reach. The seams of this nation are tearing because of his malfeasance.
Nor is it a matter only of the wrong words. Peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park were attacked on the president’s behalf. National Guard and other units used tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and mounted police to drive them from the park a half hour before curfew so that the path would be cleared for the president’s walk across the street to St. John’s. A few moments later, he had the gall to say that he was on the side of “all peaceful demonstrators.”
The point of all these military actions he is threatening? The peace and security of the American people? Maybe. But first and foremost, your “Second Amendment rights.” As for the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? That’s dispensable, apparently.
Joe Biden actually entered a church on Monday, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Wilmington, Delaware. It wasn’t a prayer service, but a meeting with faith leaders. Biden listened for over an hour. He took notes. He heard criticism of the 1994 crime bill he had done so much to pass. When it was his turn to speak, Biden asked for a moment of prayer. He invoked Kierkegaard: He quoted the philosopher to the effect that “Faith sees best in the dark,” adding “And it’s been pretty dark.” He promised to take the problem of police brutality seriously, and mentioned that it is not limited to white officers. When the time came for a photo op, Biden chose to drop to one knee.
It wasn’t spectacular. It wasn’t the sort of thing you’d share on social media (though it deserved more coverage on traditional media). It wasn’t Biden “owning” anybody. He didn’t break any new ground or say anything especially quotable. It was just quiet decency. It was what used to be normal—and can be again.