thebulwark--2020-05-31--Donald Trump Is America’s First Vigilante President

Twice in a 24-hour period , the president of the United States took to Twitter to endorse violence .
The first time , at 12:00 a.m. on Thursday , he retweeted a video in which a supporter says , “ The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.
” Then , early Friday morning , as protests over the police killing of George Floyd erupted in Minneapolis and turned violent , Donald Trump tweeted that “ THUGS ” were “ dishonoring ” Mr. Floyd ’ s memory .
He concluded with a chilling warning : “ when the looting starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by no means the first American president to talk tough or to threaten the use of violence .
But other presidents , mindful of the chief executive ’ s role as the leader of the entire nation , were focused on America ’ s public power and its legitimate use of force .
The president ’ s recent tweets were just the latest example of his penchant for threatening , encouraging , or obliquely endorsing violence directed against individual political opponents and/or racial minorities .
His embrace of such violence marks such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predecessors that we might fairly regard him as America ’ s first vigilante president .
Throughout the 2016 campaign and since his inauguration , Donald Trump regularly has talked—sometimes with a disturbingly playful tone—about the violent things he would like to do , or the violent things he would like his supporters to do .
All of it well outside the bounds of legality .
Trump has purveyed images of violence against journalists and said he would like to “ punch ” protesters in the face .
At a campaign rally in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato , knock the crap out of them , would you ?
Seriously , OK ?
Just knock the hell .
.
.
I promise you I will pay for the legal fees .
I promise , I promise.
” In 2017 , two days after the death of a young woman protesting against a massive white supremacist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , Trump said , “ I think there is blame on both sides .
.
.
.
But you also had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both sides.
” In so doing he drew a moral equivalence between violent hate groups and their victims .
The next year , the president praised a senator who had physically assaulted a reporter , saying , “ Any guy that can do a body slam , he ’ s my kind—he ’ s my guy !
” At a rally in 2019 , Trump asked what could be done about immigrants crossing the border illegally .
One enthusiast in the audience responded , “ Shoot them.
” Trump replied with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Panhandle can you get away with that statement.
” Later that year , Trump reminded his audience that “ I have the support of the police , the support of the military , the support of the Bikers for Trump—I have the tough people , but they don ’ t play it tough—until they go to a certain point , and then it would be very bad , very bad.
” Such talk , with its implicit or overt threats of violence , is very much in keeping with America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traced back to the early nineteenth century and reached its heyday in the years leading up to the Civil War .
During that period vigilantism was most prominent in the West and South .
In those areas , groups formed with the express intent of protecting civic values in a context where they claimed crime and vice were rampant .
Vigilantism generally has taken root in times of transition and in places with high levels of cultural diversity and institutional instability .
Vigilantes attack outsiders who , in their view , do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much as with the lynching that emerged after the Civil War , vigilantism has often been associated with protecting white American power .
From the 19th century to today , vigilantes have seen themselves as defending values and ways of life that they believe the government is not adequately protecting .
And they have been willing , when necessary , to act outside the law , using violence .
Vigilantes are impatient with legal procedures and technicalities ; they are ready to take justice into their own hands .
Vigilante justice can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
But recent cases in California , Georgia , and North Carolina show that police officers themselves sometimes aid and abet armed mobs .
President Trump has been able to tap into the vigilante tradition , drawing on both its anger and self-righteousness .
After more than three years in office , he still fancies himself the outsider .
That is why he continues to criticize the very government he leads and to crusade against what he portrays as a conspiracy of government officials against “ the people.
” And that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private , illegal violence .
In this moment of intense crisis and fundamental debate over the ability of the government to protect the health and safety of Americans and to balance freedom with social responsibility , it is not surprising to see people turn to private violence .
We see it when armed groups rally to protect businesses from the “ tyranny ” of lockdowns , when white people in Georgia brutally kill Ahmaud Arbery , and when a Missouri legislator says that “ looters should be shot but not by government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also not surprising that President Trump has continued to embrace vigilantism in order to escalate the cultural war into something even more serious .
Like all vigilantes , confident in their ability to right wrongs and avenge apparent wrongdoing , the president seems oblivious or indifferent to the fact that his casual remarks and incendiary tweets are tearing this country apart and risking the welfare of all who live in the United States .

Twice in a 24-hour period, the president of the United States took to Twitter to endorse violence. The first time, at 12:00 a.m. on Thursday, he retweeted a video in which a supporter says, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”
Then, early Friday morning, as protests over the police killing of George Floyd erupted in Minneapolis and turned violent, Donald Trump tweeted that “THUGS” were “dishonoring” Mr. Floyd’s memory. He concluded with a chilling warning: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Trump is by no means the first American president to talk tough or to threaten the use of violence. But other presidents, mindful of the chief executive’s role as the leader of the entire nation, were focused on America’s public power and its legitimate use of force.
The president’s recent tweets were just the latest example of his penchant for threatening, encouraging, or obliquely endorsing violence directed against individual political opponents and/or racial minorities.
His embrace of such violence marks such a stunning departure from the pattern of his predecessors that we might fairly regard him as America’s first vigilante president.
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…
Throughout the 2016 campaign and since his inauguration, Donald Trump regularly has talked—sometimes with a disturbingly playful tone—about the violent things he would like to do, or the violent things he would like his supporters to do. All of it well outside the bounds of legality.
Trump has purveyed images of violence against journalists and said he would like to “punch” protesters in the face.
At a campaign rally in 2016, he instructed the crowd, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell . . . I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”
In 2017, two days after the death of a young woman protesting against a massive white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said, “I think there is blame on both sides. . . . But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” In so doing he drew a moral equivalence between violent hate groups and their victims.
The next year, the president praised a senator who had physically assaulted a reporter, saying, “Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind—he’s my guy!”
At a rally in 2019, Trump asked what could be done about immigrants crossing the border illegally. One enthusiast in the audience responded, “Shoot them.” Trump replied with a smile, “That’s only in the Panhandle can you get away with that statement.”
Later that year, Trump reminded his audience that “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump—I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”
Such talk, with its implicit or overt threats of violence, is very much in keeping with America’s vigilante tradition, which can be traced back to the early nineteenth century and reached its heyday in the years leading up to the Civil War.
During that period vigilantism was most prominent in the West and South. In those areas, groups formed with the express intent of protecting civic values in a context where they claimed crime and vice were rampant.
Vigilantism generally has taken root in times of transition and in places with high levels of cultural diversity and institutional instability. Vigilantes attack outsiders who, in their view, do not really belong in their community.
Indeed, much as with the lynching that emerged after the Civil War, vigilantism has often been associated with protecting white American power.
From the 19th century to today, vigilantes have seen themselves as defending values and ways of life that they believe the government is not adequately protecting. And they have been willing, when necessary, to act outside the law, using violence.
Vigilantes are impatient with legal procedures and technicalities; they are ready to take justice into their own hands. Vigilante justice can be undertaken by solitary individuals or social groups. But recent cases in California, Georgia, and North Carolina show that police officers themselves sometimes aid and abet armed mobs.
President Trump has been able to tap into the vigilante tradition, drawing on both its anger and self-righteousness. After more than three years in office, he still fancies himself the outsider. That is why he continues to criticize the very government he leads and to crusade against what he portrays as a conspiracy of government officials against “the people.”
And that is why he so often encourages or praises private, illegal violence.
In this moment of intense crisis and fundamental debate over the ability of the government to protect the health and safety of Americans and to balance freedom with social responsibility, it is not surprising to see people turn to private violence.
We see it when armed groups rally to protect businesses from the “tyranny” of lockdowns, when white people in Georgia brutally kill Ahmaud Arbery, and when a Missouri legislator says that “looters should be shot but not by government. #2A.”
It is, unfortunately, also not surprising that President Trump has continued to embrace vigilantism in order to escalate the cultural war into something even more serious.
Like all vigilantes, confident in their ability to right wrongs and avenge apparent wrongdoing, the president seems oblivious or indifferent to the fact that his casual remarks and incendiary tweets are tearing this country apart and risking the welfare of all who live in the United States.


thebulwark--2020-05-31--To Make Police Accountable, End Qualified Immunity

If you haven ’ t watched the video of ( former ) Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killing George Floyd by jamming his knee into Floyd ’ s cervical spine for nearly nine minutes until he loses consciousness , you really should .
And if you can ’ t understand why large swaths of urban America have been in flames these last few nights , do two more things : ( 1 ) instead of George Floyd , who you probably don ’ t know , imagine the person pinned under Chauvin ’ s knee—prone , handcuffed , unresisting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and ( 2 ) listen to conservative pundits dissecting Chauvin ’ s merciless assault on Floyd with all the sangfroid of a referee performing an instant replay review to see whether the runner ’ s knee was down when the ball came loose .
No wonder it seems as though the country is coming apart at the seams .
In determining the relationship between government and governed , one of the most important decisions a society can make is how accountable those who wield official power must be to those against whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear choice in that regard when it passed the Enforcement Act of 1871 , which we now call “ Section 1983 ” after its location in the U.S. Code .
Simply put , Section 1983 creates a standard of strict liability by providing that state actors “ shall be liable to the party injured ” for “ the deprivation of any rights.
” Thus , if a police officer walks up to your house and peeks inside one of your windows without a warrant—a clear violation of your Fourth Amendment right against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violation of that right .
But many conservatives do an odd thing : In their preference for a more forgiving policy that gives police and other government officials substantial leeway in the exercise of discretion , they abandon their stated commitment to textualism and embrace an “ interpretation ” of Section 1983 that is utterly divorced from its text .
The vehicle for this conservative brand of what we might call “ living statutory interpretivism ” is the Supreme Court ’ s qualified immunity doctrine , which judicially amends Section 1983 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer be the deprivation of “ any rights ” —as Congress expressly provided—but rather the deprivation of any “ clearly established ” rights .
As documented in considerable detail on Cato ’ s Unlawful Shield website , those two words— “ clearly established ” —do an extraordinary amount of work in keeping meritorious cases out of court and ensuring that plaintiffs whose rights have been violated by police or other state actors will receive no recovery unless they can find a pre-existing case in the jurisdiction with nearly identical facts .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress wrote , nor is it the standard of accountability that Congress chose .
Moreover , as Professor Will Baude demonstrates in his masterful article , “ Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful ?
, ” there is no credible textual or historical basis for the qualified immunity doctrine ; it is a blatant act of pro-government judicial policymaking—activism , if you will—and nothing more .
So now back to the killing of George Floyd .
Watching that horrific video , one can not help but notice the look of utter complacency on the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knee into Floyd ’ s neck .
There is no life-or-death struggle—indeed , no struggle at all ; nor is there any evident anger or passion—there is simply the banality of a man wearing a badge , surrounded and supported by other men with badges , methodically squeezing the life out of another human being .
It is well known that prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges against police officers , and indeed it seems unlikely Chauvin would have been charged had his assault on George Floyd not been captured on a viral video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountability for most victims of police misconduct is a civil rights lawsuit that they themselves can initiate without the largesse of some prosecutor or citizen review board .
But the Supreme Court has largely gutted that remedy with a judicially confected gloss that transforms the legislatively chosen policy of strict liability into one of near-zero accountability .
Cities are burning , and many people are venting their rage—yet again—about how cavalier police have become with the use of force , including lethal force , against the very citizens they are sworn to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angry , and they ’ d probably be even angrier if they understood that it was never supposed to be like this—that Congress specifically chose a system of robust government accountability that was repudiated and perverted by the Supreme Court .
This Monday we will find out whether the Court will take the unprecedented opportunity it now has to revisit qualified immunity .
It will be particularly interesting to see which self-styled conservatives—on and off the Court—place their stated commitment to textualism and judicial deference above whatever personal preference they may have for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for law enforcement .

If you haven’t watched the video of (former) Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killing George Floyd by jamming his knee into Floyd’s cervical spine for nearly nine minutes until he loses consciousness, you really should. And if you can’t understand why large swaths of urban America have been in flames these last few nights, do two more things: (1) instead of George Floyd, who you probably don’t know, imagine the person pinned under Chauvin’s knee—prone, handcuffed, unresisting, and begging for mercy—was someone you love; and (2) listen to conservative pundits dissecting Chauvin’s merciless assault on Floyd with all the sangfroid of a referee performing an instant replay review to see whether the runner’s knee was down when the ball came loose. No wonder it seems as though the country is coming apart at the seams.
In determining the relationship between government and governed, one of the most important decisions a society can make is how accountable those who wield official power must be to those against whom that power is wielded. Congress made a clear choice in that regard when it passed the Enforcement Act of 1871, which we now call “Section 1983” after its location in the U.S. Code. Simply put, Section 1983 creates a standard of strict liability by providing that state actors “shall be liable to the party injured” for “the deprivation of any rights.” Thus, if a police officer walks up to your house and peeks inside one of your windows without a warrant—a clear violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches—he is liable to you for the violation of that right.
But many conservatives do an odd thing: In their preference for a more forgiving policy that gives police and other government officials substantial leeway in the exercise of discretion, they abandon their stated commitment to textualism and embrace an “interpretation” of Section 1983 that is utterly divorced from its text. The vehicle for this conservative brand of what we might call “living statutory interpretivism” is the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, which judicially amends Section 1983 to provide that the standard for liability will no longer be the deprivation of “any rights”—as Congress expressly provided—but rather the deprivation of any “clearly established” rights.
As documented in considerable detail on Cato’s Unlawful Shield website, those two words—“clearly established”—do an extraordinary amount of work in keeping meritorious cases out of court and ensuring that plaintiffs whose rights have been violated by police or other state actors will receive no recovery unless they can find a pre-existing case in the jurisdiction with nearly identical facts. But that is plainly not the statute that Congress wrote, nor is it the standard of accountability that Congress chose. Moreover, as Professor Will Baude demonstrates in his masterful article, “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?,” there is no credible textual or historical basis for the qualified immunity doctrine; it is a blatant act of pro-government judicial policymaking—activism, if you will—and nothing more.
So now back to the killing of George Floyd. Watching that horrific video, one cannot help but notice the look of utter complacency on the face of Derek Chauvin as he drives his knee into Floyd’s neck. There is no life-or-death struggle—indeed, no struggle at all; nor is there any evident anger or passion—there is simply the banality of a man wearing a badge, surrounded and supported by other men with badges, methodically squeezing the life out of another human being.
It is well known that prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges against police officers, and indeed it seems unlikely Chauvin would have been charged had his assault on George Floyd not been captured on a viral video. That means the only avenue of accountability for most victims of police misconduct is a civil rights lawsuit that they themselves can initiate without the largesse of some prosecutor or citizen review board. But the Supreme Court has largely gutted that remedy with a judicially confected gloss that transforms the legislatively chosen policy of strict liability into one of near-zero accountability.
Cities are burning, and many people are venting their rage—yet again—about how cavalier police have become with the use of force, including lethal force, against the very citizens they are sworn to protect. Those people are right to be angry, and they’d probably be even angrier if they understood that it was never supposed to be like this—that Congress specifically chose a system of robust government accountability that was repudiated and perverted by the Supreme Court.
This Monday we will find out whether the Court will take the unprecedented opportunity it now has to revisit qualified immunity. It will be particularly interesting to see which self-styled conservatives—on and off the Court—place their stated commitment to textualism and judicial deference above whatever personal preference they may have for continuing our half-century experiment in near-zero accountability for law enforcement.


thebulwark--2020-06-01--Working Harder to Listen

Working Harder to Listen

The extrajudicial police murders of George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery , and Breonna Taylor , among so many others , spurred protests this weekend .
While many of the uprisings were peaceful , violence broke out in the midst of protests across the country , sparking concerns among many legitimate protesters that their cause is being drowned out by rioters and opportunists who are hijacking their real pain to engage in unbridled destruction .
In addition , many of these hijackers are white people who are often found leading the way in vandalism and violence .
This is so wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful protest comes from Nia Miranda in an Instagram video in Los Angeles .
Nia confronted two white women who were spray-painting graffiti on a Starbucks on May 30 .
She told them to stop , that this wasn ’ t the way , and that black people were going to be blamed for the destruction they were causing .
They blew her off and unapologetically kept going .
“ The news and everyone else needs to know and see the Truth !
STOP reporting black people as ‘ thugs ’ and saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miranda said .
“ This is NOT the face of the # BlackLivesMatter community .
This is NOT US !
We will not accept this !
We will speak up and speak out !
” Chas Moore , the executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition in Austin , Texas , canceled his organization ’ s participation in a rally set for Sunday because of the presence of white “ allies ” attending protests and engaging in violence across the country .
Moore said , “ White people have colonized the black anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time frame and have used black pain and black outrage to just completely become anarchists in this moment.
” In response to this cancellation and news of white people engaging in violence , Kathryn Freeman tweeted : “ It ’ s crazy that these white anarchists get to incite police violence , but completely escape the consequences of their violence while simultaneously drowning out the voices of Black people .
This is white supremacy too so don ’ t let them steal your attention !
” These are just a few of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and black ) rioters telling them to stop , that violence isn ’ t their message , and that they are making things worse .
Seeing this should cause us all to work that much harder to make sure we continue to listen to a sincere cry for justice , mercy , and humility rising from the streets .
So here ’ s the point : If you are white and you go to a rally or protest , your voice and your feelings aren ’ t the main point .
This shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if you go , you should submit to and follow the black leaders who are leading in peaceful protest .
Listen to and follow local leaders and organizers who are endeavoring to direct peaceful , legitimate , and legal protest against police brutality and racially motivated violence in their communities .
As Ecclesiastes 3:7 says , there is “ a time to tear and a time to mend , a time to be silent and a time to speak.
” It is right to listen to the pain and the frustration that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment in American history .
It is never right to co-opt that pain for your own ends .
And for those using this occasion to say that the violent rioters are obscuring the message of the legitimate protesters , I say we should listen more closely to the voices of the real protesters , peacemakers , and mourners all around us .
All weekend long there were myriad black voices speaking this message clearly across the country : All lives don ’ t matter in America unless black lives matter , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peaceful , lamenting , grieving voices begging for justice and righteousness in our land because of those using legitimate pain as an excuse to promote illegitimate chaos and destruction , then it is incumbent upon us to lean in , try harder , and stay focused .
As a Christian , I ’ m reminded that Jesus was moved in his guts with compassion for the harassed crowds ( Matthew 9:36 ) .
While we should all denounce and oppose violence , we should also make sure that we are attentive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can only happen when we humble ourselves , put the interests of others ahead of our own , and listen to the cry for justice and righteousness .
And this cry is coming from black people all around us .
I am haunted by the words of my friend Jonathan Avant , a black businessman in Montgomery , Alabama , who said a few days ago : “ I ’ ll be lying to you if I said that the murder of George Floyd didn ’ t break something in me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say I didn ’ t have a tearful breakdown this morning over it .
Let that sit .
.
.
a grown black man miles away in Montgomery , Alabama experienced a connection so strong that it brought him to tears .
Black people live in a different world than anyone else and I am fully aware that my tears don ’ t mean a thing in corporate America so for that reason , I wiped my face put on my clothes , went to work and jumped back in the game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to hear this pain right now .
And lament that it is still our reality .

The extrajudicial police murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, among so many others, spurred protests this weekend. While many of the uprisings were peaceful, violence broke out in the midst of protests across the country, sparking concerns among many legitimate protesters that their cause is being drowned out by rioters and opportunists who are hijacking their real pain to engage in unbridled destruction. In addition, many of these hijackers are white people who are often found leading the way in vandalism and violence. This is so wrong.
One example of the hijacking of peaceful protest comes from Nia Miranda in an Instagram video in Los Angeles. Nia confronted two white women who were spray-painting graffiti on a Starbucks on May 30. She told them to stop, that this wasn’t the way, and that black people were going to be blamed for the destruction they were causing. They blew her off and unapologetically kept going.
“The news and everyone else needs to know and see the Truth! STOP reporting black people as ‘thugs’ and saying we are destroying the community,” Miranda said. “This is NOT the face of the #BlackLivesMatter community. This is NOT US! We will not accept this! We will speak up and speak out!”
Chas Moore, the executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition in Austin, Texas, canceled his organization’s participation in a rally set for Sunday because of the presence of white “allies” attending protests and engaging in violence across the country. Moore said, “White people have colonized the black anger and the black movement in this particular time frame and have used black pain and black outrage to just completely become anarchists in this moment.”
In response to this cancellation and news of white people engaging in violence, Kathryn Freeman tweeted: “It’s crazy that these white anarchists get to incite police violence, but completely escape the consequences of their violence while simultaneously drowning out the voices of Black people. This is white supremacy too so don’t let them steal your attention!”
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…
These are just a few of many examples of black protesters confronting white (and black) rioters telling them to stop, that violence isn’t their message, and that they are making things worse. Seeing this should cause us all to work that much harder to make sure we continue to listen to a sincere cry for justice, mercy, and humility rising from the streets.
So here’s the point: If you are white and you go to a rally or protest, your voice and your feelings aren’t the main point. This shouldn’t have to be said, but if you go, you should submit to and follow the black leaders who are leading in peaceful protest. Listen to and follow local leaders and organizers who are endeavoring to direct peaceful, legitimate, and legal protest against police brutality and racially motivated violence in their communities. As Ecclesiastes 3:7 says, there is “a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak.” It is right to listen to the pain and the frustration that is overflowing from the black community in this moment in American history. It is never right to co-opt that pain for your own ends.
And for those using this occasion to say that the violent rioters are obscuring the message of the legitimate protesters, I say we should listen more closely to the voices of the real protesters, peacemakers, and mourners all around us. All weekend long there were myriad black voices speaking this message clearly across the country: All lives don’t matter in America unless black lives matter, too. If we can’t hear the peaceful, lamenting, grieving voices begging for justice and righteousness in our land because of those using legitimate pain as an excuse to promote illegitimate chaos and destruction, then it is incumbent upon us to lean in, try harder, and stay focused.
As a Christian, I’m reminded that Jesus was moved in his guts with compassion for the harassed crowds (Matthew 9:36). While we should all denounce and oppose violence, we should also make sure that we are attentive to the pain of our neighbor. And that can only happen when we humble ourselves, put the interests of others ahead of our own, and listen to the cry for justice and righteousness.
And this cry is coming from black people all around us. I am haunted by the words of my friend Jonathan Avant, a black businessman in Montgomery, Alabama, who said a few days ago:
“I’ll be lying to you if I said that the murder of George Floyd didn’t break something in me. I’ll also be lying if I say I didn’t have a tearful breakdown this morning over it. Let that sit . . . a grown black man miles away in Montgomery, Alabama experienced a connection so strong that it brought him to tears. Black people live in a different world than anyone else and I am fully aware that my tears don’t mean a thing in corporate America so for that reason, I wiped my face put on my clothes, went to work and jumped back in the game like my Dad always taught me.”
We need to hear this pain right now. And lament that it is still our reality.


thebulwark--2020-06-01--Days of Fire, Days of Grace

Days of Fire, Days of Grace

Fire is a tricky thing .
It is the candle that illuminates , it is the hearth that warms , it is the flame that cooks and nourishes .
And it is the inferno that rages .
In our understanding of our own humanity , it is our mastery of fire that sets us apart from the animals .
In the Promethean myth , fire is the power of the gods stolen for us as a gift of liberation and enfranchisement , to turn to our own betterment or destruction .
And we certainly saw a lot of the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country—literal fires ignited by rage over the killing of George Floyd last week .
As with most fires lit in anger , they soon burned out of control .
Just anger gave way to unjust lawlessness , violence begetting violence as it is fated to do .
Drowning out the protesters ’ cry for justice was the incoherent , primal scream of the mob , seeking neither justice nor peace .
Once a fire spreads past its proper place , there is no controlling what it consumes ; it often burns down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was lit in the first place .
But if the flames that answered the death of George Floyd burst forth suddenly , they fed on fuel that has long been gathering and smoldering .
There is the constant racial injustice , with its long and horrible history .
There were other recent racial incidents : the vigilante killing of Ahmaud Arbery in February , video of which was leaked online in May .
There was the video that went viral the same day Floyd was killed showing a white woman in Central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black man was threatening her life because he asked her to put her dog on a leash .
There is also the constant slow burn of online rage and aggression that characterizes social media .
For more than a few of those taking to the streets in Minneapolis , and Chicago , and Houston , and elsewhere , the demonstrations over Floyd ’ s death were just another mob to be joined , another outlet in a culture of total and constant conflict .
President Trump ’ s message , delivered on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting starts , the shooting starts—pouring , as only he can , oil on troubled flames .
But something of the Promethean spark remains .
This weekend also saw the first crewed launch of a SpaceX Dragon capsule atop a Falcon 9 rocket , the rumbling fires of which signaled America ’ s return to sending astronauts beyond the confines of our planet and fueling , perhaps , a new generation ’ s dreams of discovery and adventure .
The relentlessly sarcastic denizens of Twitter laced their salutes to the astronauts with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave earth .
Maybe these joking remarks , which got a lot of likes , diminished an icon of common human endeavor and achievement at a time when we desperately could use one .
But they also highlighted the bizarre juxtaposition : We are sending men into space as our cities riot .
But we perhaps forget that Apollo 11 launched at the height of the Cold War and at the end of a decade that saw mass civil unrest—just and unjust—on a scale we have yet to come close to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our proudest achievements was forged in a burning cultural crucible .
And we are in a crucible now .
The ravages of a global pandemic , which itself has spread like wildfire , have confronted us with the limits of our power and mortality .
Lockdown measures have created a pressure-cooker atmosphere that has surely played a part in the explosion of violence seen in many cities .
This weekend , Christians celebrated the feast of Pentecost , the descent of the Holy Spirit on the first apostles .
“ And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were of fire , and it sat upon every one of them.
” The story of Pentecost caps a very human fifty days after Easter for the first Christians .
Despite seeing the risen Christ , eating with him , talking to him , watching him ascend into heaven , those weeks are filled with doubts , hesitations , and ultimately fear .
Those eleven had grace poured out on them as they—like many of us now—were locked indoors , in fear of their lives , knowing everything they needed to know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grace they received lit within them a desire to go out , not with a spirit of righteousness or anger , but of burning desire to announce something : that life has conquered death .
We too have seen bright lights of grace shining in the darkness .
Amid the despair of hospitals and nursing homes , where death has cast a terrible shadow , we have seen true heroism and self-sacrifice .
Doctors , nurses , priests , and family members have marched into situations they knew risked death—and many have offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have become the catalysts for a thousand acts of self-giving , be it taking a loving interest in their isolated neighbors , or marshaling charity—which means love , not pity—for those suddenly without work .
And there have been moments of grace amid the riots and terror and flames in our cities these past few days , too .
Protesters who courageously protected the weak or sought to restrain violence .
In a few places , police who marched with , or prayed with , the protesters .
Our politics and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our communities .
But faced with extraordinary circumstances , we still see the action of something superhuman among us : grace , which lights a fire of its own , impelling us to serve the other , against our own interests .
This is a truth from which we can take heart : these days of fire are also days of grace .

Fire is a tricky thing. It is the candle that illuminates, it is the hearth that warms, it is the flame that cooks and nourishes. And it is the inferno that rages.
In our understanding of our own humanity, it is our mastery of fire that sets us apart from the animals. In the Promethean myth, fire is the power of the gods stolen for us as a gift of liberation and enfranchisement, to turn to our own betterment or destruction. And we certainly saw a lot of the latter this weekend.
Cities have burned across the country—literal fires ignited by rage over the killing of George Floyd last week. As with most fires lit in anger, they soon burned out of control. Just anger gave way to unjust lawlessness, violence begetting violence as it is fated to do.
Drowning out the protesters’ cry for justice was the incoherent, primal scream of the mob, seeking neither justice nor peace. Once a fire spreads past its proper place, there is no controlling what it consumes; it often burns down the home or community for whose benefit it was lit in the first place.
But if the flames that answered the death of George Floyd burst forth suddenly, they fed on fuel that has long been gathering and smoldering.
There is the constant racial injustice, with its long and horrible history. There were other recent racial incidents: the vigilante killing of Ahmaud Arbery in February, video of which was leaked online in May. There was the video that went viral the same day Floyd was killed showing a white woman in Central Park calling 911 to complain that a black man was threatening her life because he asked her to put her dog on a leash.
There is also the constant slow burn of online rage and aggression that characterizes social media. For more than a few of those taking to the streets in Minneapolis, and Chicago, and Houston, and elsewhere, the demonstrations over Floyd’s death were just another mob to be joined, another outlet in a culture of total and constant conflict.
President Trump’s message, delivered on Twitter of course, was that when the looting starts, the shooting starts—pouring, as only he can, oil on troubled flames.
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…
But something of the Promethean spark remains. This weekend also saw the first crewed launch of a SpaceX Dragon capsule atop a Falcon 9 rocket, the rumbling fires of which signaled America’s return to sending astronauts beyond the confines of our planet and fueling, perhaps, a new generation’s dreams of discovery and adventure.
The relentlessly sarcastic denizens of Twitter laced their salutes to the astronauts with the observation that it was a good time to leave earth. Maybe these joking remarks, which got a lot of likes, diminished an icon of common human endeavor and achievement at a time when we desperately could use one. But they also highlighted the bizarre juxtaposition: We are sending men into space as our cities riot. But we perhaps forget that Apollo 11 launched at the height of the Cold War and at the end of a decade that saw mass civil unrest—just and unjust—on a scale we have yet to come close to. It says much about us that one of our proudest achievements was forged in a burning cultural crucible.
And we are in a crucible now. The ravages of a global pandemic, which itself has spread like wildfire, have confronted us with the limits of our power and mortality. Lockdown measures have created a pressure-cooker atmosphere that has surely played a part in the explosion of violence seen in many cities.
This weekend, Christians celebrated the feast of Pentecost, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the first apostles. “And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them.”
The story of Pentecost caps a very human fifty days after Easter for the first Christians. Despite seeing the risen Christ, eating with him, talking to him, watching him ascend into heaven, those weeks are filled with doubts, hesitations, and ultimately fear.
Those eleven had grace poured out on them as they—like many of us now—were locked indoors, in fear of their lives, knowing everything they needed to know, but paralyzed. The fire of the grace they received lit within them a desire to go out, not with a spirit of righteousness or anger, but of burning desire to announce something: that life has conquered death.
We too have seen bright lights of grace shining in the darkness. Amid the despair of hospitals and nursing homes, where death has cast a terrible shadow, we have seen true heroism and self-sacrifice. Doctors, nurses, priests, and family members have marched into situations they knew risked death—and many have offered their lives for others. Still more people have become the catalysts for a thousand acts of self-giving, be it taking a loving interest in their isolated neighbors, or marshaling charity—which means love, not pity—for those suddenly without work.
And there have been moments of grace amid the riots and terror and flames in our cities these past few days, too. Protesters who courageously protected the weak or sought to restrain violence. In a few places, police who marched with, or prayed with, the protesters.
Our politics and public discourse have for years wreaked damage on our communities. But faced with extraordinary circumstances, we still see the action of something superhuman among us: grace, which lights a fire of its own, impelling us to serve the other, against our own interests.
This is a truth from which we can take heart: these days of fire are also days of grace.


thebulwark--2020-06-01--It’s Time for Another Declaration of Conscience

Seventy years ago today , freshman senator Margaret Chase Smith , a Republican from Maine , gave the most consequential speech of her career .
Here ’ s how the Senate historian ’ s office tells it : This speech , delivered almost a year and a half after she came to the Senate , was Smith ’ s first speech on the Senate floor .
She was no neophyte as a legislator ; she had served in the House for nearly a decade before her election to the Senate in 1948—which made her , incidentally , the first woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But by tradition , new senators did not speak on the floor until , after many months of waiting , they gave their “ maiden speeches.
” McCarthy , of course , is today remembered as a Senate bully who abused his power in his efforts to investigate Communists—real and alleged—and drag them before the world ’ s greatest deliberative body to answer for their sins .
He was still just getting started by this point in 1950 ; he gave his first famous speech , the one in which he waved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State Department , earlier that year .
Over the next four years , he would be one of the dominant figures in the Red Scare before his eventual disgrace .
The parallels between McCarthyism and Trumpism are striking—although , in keeping with the times , Trumpian show trials take place on Twitter and the echo chamber of conservative opinionating on cable , talk radio , and the web .
It ’ s worth your time to read Smith ’ s entire speech ( which took her about 15 minutes to deliver ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they apply to the politics of today .
As our own Congress continues its slow , do-little glidepath to the contentious 2020 elections , and as President Trump tweets while our cities burn , our national feeling is certainly one of fear and frustration .
“ I speak as a Republican .
I speak as a woman .
I speak as a United States senator .
I speak as an American , ” Smith said .
The first of five topics she tackled was how the Senate had become “ a forum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think I need to tell you , dear reader , that we have problems with hate and character assassination in our politics today , and they start at the top .
But it ’ s corrupted political discourse all the way down—not just down to the level of senators and representatives , but down to local officials .
Smith ’ s intent was basically to indict McCarthy ( without naming him ) for lobbing accusations from the safety of the Senate .
“ Whether it be a criminal prosecution in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate , ” Smith said , “ there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
” Today , it ’ s the attack machine of the president , his official defenders in the administration , his apologists in conservative media , and his followers in social media who seek to destroy anyone who stands against him .
Smith next tackles “ the basic principles of Americanism.
” It amounts to a succinct explanation of the “ liberal ” side of what makes the United States a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who , by our own words and acts , ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism .
The right to hold unpopular beliefs .
The right of independent thought .
The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs .
Judging by that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just shy of 100—would be horrified by today ’ s America .
One need only log onto Twitter to see tribalist witch hunts going every which way .
Usually , they ’ re tied to one of these “ basic principles of Americanism.
” Often , what people said was ill advised or stupid , but the responses are often also ill advised or stupid .
People push for firings , retribution .
Memories are long .
Digital trench warfare goes on and on without end .
Donald Trump didn ’ t create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt that day after day , he makes it worse .
And conservative critics of Trump and Trumpism today often fare about as well as Smith did .
After her speech , McCarthy called her ( and the six senators who signed onto her declaration ) “ Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.
” Just the sort of juvenile name-calling President Trump relishes .
Like McCarthy , Trump is able get away with smearing others because of a “ nationwide distrust , ” as Smith called it , one that creates a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something to the unproved , sensational accusations.
” Since politicians , activists and pundits can only plausibly police their own , Smith offered “ a challenge to the Republican party ” : Smith then pointed out that her fellow Republicans were missing opportunities for substantive policy leadership—like fighting the “ loose spending ” and “ loose programs ” and ineffective global leadership of the Truman administration—by taking their divisive approach to politics .
Sound familiar ?
Think of all the wasted time and lost opportunities during the last four years .
How many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
The nation “ sorely needs a Republican victory , ” Smith said , but she did not “ want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear , Ignorance , Bigotry , and Smear.
” That list right there—fear , ignorance , bigotry , and smear—could well be the slogan of Trumpism .
Could the Republican party ride to victory on those four horses ?
Smith didn ’ t think so : “ I doubt if the Republican party could do so , simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest .
Surely we Republicans are not that desperate for victory.
” Smith , as it happened , was wrong before she was right .
Her Republican party increasingly did turn toward McCarthyism , and the party won both chambers of Congress and the presidency in 1952 .
( Eisenhower ’ s platform that year : “ Korea , Communism , and Corruption.
” ) But within a couple of years , the country , and the leadership of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1954 the Senate came around to censuring McCarthy .
Three years after that he was dead .
The Senate , Smith warned , had become “ a rendezvous for vilification , for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.
” It ’ s hard to imagine any of today ’ s Republican senators , save for perhaps Mitt Romney , doing what Smith did next : release a declaration of principles from herself and six colleagues .
Here is the entirety of that declaration : Five easy-to-understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply to the world of 2020 as much as they did in 1950 .
If you ’ re reading these and thinking “ Yes , but… ” then perhaps it ’ s too late for us to heed Smith ’ s warning .

Seventy years ago today, freshman senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine, gave the most consequential speech of her career. Here’s how the Senate historian’s office tells it:
As Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine boarded the Senate subway, she encountered the junior senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy. “Margaret, you look very serious,” he said. “Are you going to make a speech?” Without hesitation, Smith replied: “Yes, and you will not like it!”
This speech, delivered almost a year and a half after she came to the Senate, was Smith’s first speech on the Senate floor. She was no neophyte as a legislator; she had served in the House for nearly a decade before her election to the Senate in 1948—which made her, incidentally, the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. But by tradition, new senators did not speak on the floor until, after many months of waiting, they gave their “maiden speeches.”
McCarthy, of course, is today remembered as a Senate bully who abused his power in his efforts to investigate Communists—real and alleged—and drag them before the world’s greatest deliberative body to answer for their sins. He was still just getting started by this point in 1950; he gave his first famous speech, the one in which he waved a list of 205 supposed Communists in the State Department, earlier that year. Over the next four years, he would be one of the dominant figures in the Red Scare before his eventual disgrace.
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…
The parallels between McCarthyism and Trumpism are striking—although, in keeping with the times, Trumpian show trials take place on Twitter and the echo chamber of conservative opinionating on cable, talk radio, and the web.
It’s worth your time to read Smith’s entire speech (which took her about 15 minutes to deliver). But there are aspects worth highlighting as they apply to the politics of today.
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership either in the legislative branch or the executive branch of our government.
As our own Congress continues its slow, do-little glidepath to the contentious 2020 elections, and as President Trump tweets while our cities burn, our national feeling is certainly one of fear and frustration.
“I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States senator. I speak as an American,” Smith said. The first of five topics she tackled was how the Senate had become “a forum of hate and character assassination.”
I don’t think I need to tell you, dear reader, that we have problems with hate and character assassination in our politics today, and they start at the top. But it’s corrupted political discourse all the way down—not just down to the level of senators and representatives, but down to local officials. Smith’s intent was basically to indict McCarthy (without naming him) for lobbing accusations from the safety of the Senate. “Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate,” Smith said, “there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.” Today, it’s the attack machine of the president, his official defenders in the administration, his apologists in conservative media, and his followers in social media who seek to destroy anyone who stands against him.
Smith next tackles “the basic principles of Americanism.” It amounts to a succinct explanation of the “liberal” side of what makes the United States a “liberal democracy”:
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism. The right to criticize. The right to hold unpopular beliefs. The right to protest. The right of independent thought. The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.
Judging by that passage, Smith—who died in 1995, just shy of 100—would be horrified by today’s America. One need only log onto Twitter to see tribalist witch hunts going every which way. Usually, they’re tied to one of these “basic principles of Americanism.” Often, what people said was ill advised or stupid, but the responses are often also ill advised or stupid. People push for firings, retribution. Memories are long. Digital trench warfare goes on and on without end. Donald Trump didn’t create this dynamic, but there’s no doubt that day after day, he makes it worse.
And conservative critics of Trump and Trumpism today often fare about as well as Smith did. After her speech, McCarthy called her (and the six senators who signed onto her declaration) “Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.” Just the sort of juvenile name-calling President Trump relishes.
Like McCarthy, Trump is able get away with smearing others because of a “nationwide distrust,” as Smith called it, one that creates a “strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.”
Ask Joe Scarborough.
Since politicians, activists and pundits can only plausibly police their own, Smith offered “a challenge to the Republican party”:
Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes.
Smith then pointed out that her fellow Republicans were missing opportunities for substantive policy leadership—like fighting the “loose spending” and “loose programs” and ineffective global leadership of the Truman administration—by taking their divisive approach to politics. Sound familiar? Think of all the wasted time and lost opportunities during the last four years. How many “infrastructure weeks” have we had now?
The nation “sorely needs a Republican victory,” Smith said, but she did not “want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.”
That list right there—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear—could well be the slogan of Trumpism.
Could the Republican party ride to victory on those four horses? Smith didn’t think so: “I doubt if the Republican party could do so, simply because I do not believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans are not that desperate for victory.”
Smith, as it happened, was wrong before she was right. Her Republican party increasingly did turn toward McCarthyism, and the party won both chambers of Congress and the presidency in 1952. (Eisenhower’s platform that year: “Korea, Communism, and Corruption.”) But within a couple of years, the country, and the leadership of the party, had sickened of McCarthyism, and in 1954 the Senate came around to censuring McCarthy. Three years after that he was dead.
The Senate, Smith warned, had become “a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.”
It’s hard to imagine any of today’s Republican senators, save for perhaps Mitt Romney, doing what Smith did next: release a declaration of principles from herself and six colleagues. Here is the entirety of that declaration:
1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion. 2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics. 3. Certain elements of the Republican party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears. 4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide, and conquer.” 5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.
Five easy-to-understand principles that, with some updating, apply to the world of 2020 as much as they did in 1950. If you’re reading these and thinking “Yes, but…” then perhaps it’s too late for us to heed Smith’s warning.


thebulwark--2020-06-01--What Did They Think Would Happen?

What Did They Think Would Happen?

An awful lot of Trump ’ s defenders in conservative media appear to be shocked by what is happening right now in America .
But I ’ m kind of curious .
What did they think was going to happen ?
The president has a real job .
His words have real consequences .
Electing someone to that position who has no compunction about stoking racial tensions and a history of incendiary , violent , racist rhetoric—and totally uninterested in even the idea of national unity—was always a ticking time bomb .
None of this is to absolve the looters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongest possible terms .
But no one should be surprised that we ’ ve gotten to this point .
There was always going to be an intervening event , be it police violence or economic strife , that would reawaken our country ’ s underlying racial tensions and inequity .
In a country with our history – with our present – this might be the most predictable catastrophe in history .
The argument made in 2016 by conservatives who thought that Trump was manifestly unfit for the job went something like this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibilities seemed so obvious then that I could never tell if the people denying them were really blind , or if they were working overtime to pretend not to see them .
Did they really think that putting a man bereft of character , decency , and empathy in charge of the country wouldn ’ t make a difference ?
Did they really think that dismissing each instance of his racism , bullying , fecklessness , megalomania , corruption , lies , and stupidity it wouldn ’ t have a cumulative effect ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and indirect variety , will scoff at the idea that what is happening to the country right now is in any way related to Trump ’ s incompetent and toxic performance .
They have to scoff .
Because to admit that Trump played any part in bringing us to this moment is to admit culpability for the role they played all the times they covered for him because , you know , Gorsuch .
So instead they tweet outrage at the cities on fire and the protestors in the street with a studied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the logical conclusion—to paraphrase John Heilemann—of putting a pyromaniac in charge of a tinder box .
What did they think was going to happen ?
We have an incurious narcissist of a president who was warned over and over by his advisors about an imminent pandemic .
He ignored them .
Then he engaged in “ one day it will just disappear ” wishcasting instead of spearheading a coordinated federal response .
Then he said that he “ take [ s ] no responsibility.
” What did they think was going to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 104,000 dead in 12 weeks and sparked an economic crisis that has pushed 40 million into unemployment .
And during this time the president used his bully pulpit not to rally the country to unity or try to vent some of the pressure that was building up in our communities , but to promote fake medical cures , push fake Obama scandals , and to spread conspiracy theories about a fake murder .
What did they think was going to happen ?
You may remember that time when the president told American congresswomen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they came from.
” Or the time he told cops not to “ be too nice ” when arresting suspects .
Or the time he laughed when one of his supporters suggested shooting immigrants .
Or all the times he told his followers to punch people he didn ’ t like .
Donald Trump has spent his entire political career using maximally divisive , racially charged , rhetoric that glorifies violence while winking and nodding to those eager to receive the high-pitched dog-whistle of hate .
What did they think was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior sets the tone for the country .
When the president lacks restraint , he creates permission structures for less restraint from everyone down the chain—politicians , cops , citizens .
When the president lacks character , there is a vacuum of leadership .
And chaos always fills that void .
When the president relishes violence and promises to unleash “ vicious dogs ” and “ ominous weapons ” on protesters , we should not be shocked when things escalate .
Again , I ’ m not excusing the looting and rioting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable for their crimes .
But this isn ’ t an either/or situation .
You can hold those people responsible and also hold the president accountable for the toxic atmosphere he has recklessly nurtured .
And you can hold to account the people who , for reasons of either convenience , or ideology , or profit , made themselves willfully blind to what Trump has been doing .
As a young conservative in the ‘ 90s and early aughts I was told , over and over ( and to this day still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Well , President Trump didn ’ t bring any of those things with him .
And rather than demand better , conservatives and Republicans surrendered .
Many of them eagerly .
They put policy over decency .
They prioritized political power over everything .
From the day he came down the escalator , Trump promised to burn it all down .
And now Conservatism Inc. is surprised the country is on fire ?
What did they think was going to happen ?

An awful lot of Trump’s defenders in conservative media appear to be shocked by what is happening right now in America.
But I’m kind of curious. What did they think was going to happen?
The president has a real job. His words have real consequences. Electing someone to that position who has no compunction about stoking racial tensions and a history of incendiary, violent, racist rhetoric—and totally uninterested in even the idea of national unity—was always a ticking time bomb.
None of this is to absolve the looters and rioters—they should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But no one should be surprised that we’ve gotten to this point.
There was always going to be an intervening event, be it police violence or economic strife, that would reawaken our country’s underlying racial tensions and inequity. In a country with our history – with our present – this might be the most predictable catastrophe in history.
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…
The argument made in 2016 by conservatives who thought that Trump was manifestly unfit for the job went something like this:
Sure, we might get judges and tax cuts. But the potential downside of having a senescent, wannabe gangster as president of the United States is that (1) he might push us into a constitutional crisis and that (2) if he’s confronted with a real-world crisis, there’s a non-zero chance he could cause radical, real-world harm.
Well, here we are.
These possibilities seemed so obvious then that I could never tell if the people denying them were really blind, or if they were working overtime to pretend not to see them.
Did they really think that putting a man bereft of character, decency, and empathy in charge of the country wouldn’t make a difference?
Did they really think that dismissing each instance of his racism, bullying, fecklessness, megalomania, corruption, lies, and stupidity it wouldn’t have a cumulative effect?
Trump accommodators, of both the direct and indirect variety, will scoff at the idea that what is happening to the country right now is in any way related to Trump’s incompetent and toxic performance.
They have to scoff. Because to admit that Trump played any part in bringing us to this moment is to admit culpability for the role they played all the times they covered for him because, you know, Gorsuch. So instead they tweet outrage at the cities on fire and the protestors in the street with a studied blindness to the fact that this is the logical conclusion—to paraphrase John Heilemann—of putting a pyromaniac in charge of a tinder box.
What did they think was going to happen?
We have an incurious narcissist of a president who was warned over and over by his advisors about an imminent pandemic. He ignored them. Then he engaged in “one day it will just disappear” wishcasting instead of spearheading a coordinated federal response. Then he said that he “take[s] no responsibility.”
What did they think was going to happen?
This pandemic has left more than 104,000 dead in 12 weeks and sparked an economic crisis that has pushed 40 million into unemployment. And during this time the president used his bully pulpit not to rally the country to unity or try to vent some of the pressure that was building up in our communities, but to promote fake medical cures, push fake Obama scandals, and to spread conspiracy theories about a fake murder.
What did they think was going to happen?
You may remember that time when the president told American congresswomen of color to “go back to where they came from.” Or the time he told cops not to “be too nice” when arresting suspects. Or the time he laughed when one of his supporters suggested shooting immigrants. Or all the times he told his followers to punch people he didn’t like.
All the Times Trump Has Called for Violence at His Rallies
Watch this video on YouTube
Donald Trump has spent his entire political career using maximally divisive, racially charged, rhetoric that glorifies violence while winking and nodding to those eager to receive the high-pitched dog-whistle of hate.
What did they think was going to happen?
The president’s behavior sets the tone for the country. When the president lacks restraint, he creates permission structures for less restraint from everyone down the chain—politicians, cops, citizens. When the president lacks character, there is a vacuum of leadership. And chaos always fills that void. When the president relishes violence and promises to unleash “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons” on protesters, we should not be shocked when things escalate.
Again, I’m not excusing the looting and rioting. The people committing that violence should be held accountable for their crimes. But this isn’t an either/or situation. You can hold those people responsible and also hold the president accountable for the toxic atmosphere he has recklessly nurtured.
And you can hold to account the people who, for reasons of either convenience, or ideology, or profit, made themselves willfully blind to what Trump has been doing.
As a young conservative in the ‘90s and early aughts I was told, over and over (and to this day still believe), that “character counts.”
Peggy Noonan once wrote of Ronald Reagan:
In a president, character is everything. A president doesn’t have to be brilliant; Harry Truman wasn’t brilliant, and he helped save Western Europe from Stalin. He doesn’t have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator or implement a strategy. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. But you can’t buy courage and decency, you can’t rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him.
Well, President Trump didn’t bring any of those things with him. And rather than demand better, conservatives and Republicans surrendered. Many of them eagerly. They put policy over decency. They prioritized political power over everything.
From the day he came down the escalator, Trump promised to burn it all down. And now Conservatism Inc. is surprised the country is on fire?
What did they think was going to happen?


thebulwark--2020-06-02--Tom Cotton Should Know Better

Tom Cotton Should Know Better

Senator Tom Cotton , the first-term Republican senator from Arkansas , is a retired Army captain .
He deployed to Iraq in May 2006 with the 101st Airborne , during the time of Gen. George Casey ’ s catastrophic strategy ; Cotton left before the “ surge ” and Gen. David Petraeus ’ s brilliant winning-hearts-and-minds strategy .
Cotton then served with the storied Old Guard , the regiment best known for the ceremonies it performs at Arlington National Cemetery .
( He discussed the latter experience in a Bulwark podcast last year . )
In 2008-09 , he deployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterinsurgency and reconstruction planning .
Since coming to the Senate in 2015 , Cotton has served on the Armed Services Committee .
Someone with so much experience should not speak as stupidly and crudely about the military as Cotton did on Monday .
Three days after President Trump tweeted that “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” Cotton told a Fox News interviewer that “ if local law enforcement is overwhelmed , if local politicians will not do their most basic job to protect our citizens , let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 101st Airborne is on the other side of the street.
” Cotton then doubled down on Twitter : The phrase “ no quarter ” means killing enemy combatants rather than taking any prisoners .
Cotton was immediately and deservedly dunked on by everybody .
David French pointed out that a no-quarter order would be a war crime .
Eliot Cohen , with his typical dry wit , tweeted : “ Also a bit odd for a Senator from Arkansas to recommend ‘ no quarter ’ for ‘ insurrectionists.
’ William Tecumseh Sherman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s remarks on Monday suggest that , notwithstanding his service in Iraq , he did not learn the fundamental lesson of that war ’ s two strategies , one failed and the other successful : Just shooting at insurgents does not reestablish order , it adds gasoline to the flame .
At the risk of oversimplifying , our strategy against the insurgency in Iraq was for about three years one of Let ’ s see how tough these insurgents and terrorists are against the might of the American military !
It turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petraeus came .
The Army ’ s foremost expert on counterinsurgency—he literally wrote the book on the subject—Petraeus aimed to win the hearts and minds of the local population , and even insurgents—remember the Sunni awakening ?
—by being the good guys .
We won the war and Petraeus became a national hero .
In Iraq ’ s neighboring country , Iran ’ s state TV has been showing the suppression of the protests in the United States nonstop for the past few days .
Has Cotton—who is way too enthusiastic about going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about whether giving “ no quarter ” to American citizens will help our troops to be welcomed by the Iranian population if we ever invade Iran , or any other country ?
Would any foreign people think of our military as liberators if they see the U.S. Army shooting at fellow Americans ?
American troops are not any less human than the rest of us are .
They are not robots .
You can ’ t ask them to deploy to American cities and give “ no quarter ” to fellow Americans—which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in cold blood—like it ’ s another day in the week .
There are other considerations , as well .
The U.S. military is obliged to follow the orders of the commander-in-chief , with one caveat : The orders must be lawful .
And a “ no quarter ” order would violate Geneva Convention IV and Hague Convention—treaties that were ratified by the U.S. Congress , which means they are the law of the land .
The prohibition of “ no quarter ” orders spelled out in those treaties , it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general order signed by President Lincoln during the Civil War—General Order No .
100 , also known as the Lieber Code .
So if we are to take Cotton as meaning what he wrote , he is suggesting that the U.S. military should commit war crimes—against American citizens .
Imagine how Americans would react to the sight of the U.S. military shooting at Americans in cold blood .
It is often noted that Americans nowadays lack faith in nearly all institutions—except for the military .
This would be one sure way of leveling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote , then he has a dangerous fundamental misconception of the U.S. military , and he should be removed from the Senate Armed Services Committee and voted out of office .
And if Cotton didn ’ t mean what he wrote—if he was speaking loosely or figuratively , despite being a policymaker who understands the power of words , despite being a combat veteran who understands the meaning of the terms he used , despite being a law school graduate trained to think and speak with rigor—then he should clarify and apologize @ @ @ @

Senator Tom Cotton, the first-term Republican senator from Arkansas, is a retired Army captain. He deployed to Iraq in May 2006 with the 101st Airborne, during the time of Gen. George Casey’s catastrophic strategy; Cotton left before the “surge” and Gen. David Petraeus’s brilliant winning-hearts-and-minds strategy. Cotton then served with the storied Old Guard, the regiment best known for the ceremonies it performs at Arlington National Cemetery. (He discussed the latter experience in a Bulwark podcast last year.) In 2008-09, he deployed to Afghanistan, where he was involved in counterinsurgency and reconstruction planning. Since coming to the Senate in 2015, Cotton has served on the Armed Services Committee.
Someone with so much experience should not speak as stupidly and crudely about the military as Cotton did on Monday.
Three days after President Trump tweeted that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Cotton told a Fox News interviewer that “if local law enforcement is overwhelmed, if local politicians will not do their most basic job to protect our citizens, let’s see how these anarchists respond when the 101st Airborne is on the other side of the street.”
Cotton then doubled down on Twitter:
And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, 1st Cav, 3rd Infantry—whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters.
The phrase “no quarter” means killing enemy combatants rather than taking any prisoners.
Cotton was immediately and deservedly dunked on by everybody. David French pointed out that a no-quarter order would be a war crime. Eliot Cohen, with his typical dry wit, tweeted: “Also a bit odd for a Senator from Arkansas to recommend ‘no quarter’ for ‘insurrectionists.’ William Tecumseh Sherman did not go that far.”
Ouch!
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…
Cotton’s remarks on Monday suggest that, notwithstanding his service in Iraq, he did not learn the fundamental lesson of that war’s two strategies, one failed and the other successful: Just shooting at insurgents does not reestablish order, it adds gasoline to the flame.
At the risk of oversimplifying, our strategy against the insurgency in Iraq was for about three years one of Let’s see how tough these insurgents and terrorists are against the might of the American military! It turned out they were quite tough. Then Petraeus came. The Army’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency—he literally wrote the book on the subject—Petraeus aimed to win the hearts and minds of the local population, and even insurgents—remember the Sunni awakening?—by being the good guys. We won the war and Petraeus became a national hero.
In Iraq’s neighboring country, Iran’s state TV has been showing the suppression of the protests in the United States nonstop for the past few days. Has Cotton—who is way too enthusiastic about going to war with Iran—thought for a second about whether giving “no quarter” to American citizens will help our troops to be welcomed by the Iranian population if we ever invade Iran, or any other country? Would any foreign people think of our military as liberators if they see the U.S. Army shooting at fellow Americans?
American troops are not any less human than the rest of us are. They are not robots. You can’t ask them to deploy to American cities and give “no quarter” to fellow Americans—which, if taken literally, would mean shooting them in cold blood—like it’s another day in the week.
There are other considerations, as well. The U.S. military is obliged to follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, with one caveat: The orders must be lawful. And a “no quarter” order would violate Geneva Convention IV and Hague Convention—treaties that were ratified by the U.S. Congress, which means they are the law of the land. The prohibition of “no quarter” orders spelled out in those treaties, it should be noted, was influenced by a general order signed by President Lincoln during the Civil War—General Order No. 100, also known as the Lieber Code.
So if we are to take Cotton as meaning what he wrote, he is suggesting that the U.S. military should commit war crimes—against American citizens.
Imagine how Americans would react to the sight of the U.S. military shooting at Americans in cold blood. It is often noted that Americans nowadays lack faith in nearly all institutions—except for the military. This would be one sure way of leveling the field.
If Cotton meant what he wrote, then he has a dangerous fundamental misconception of the U.S. military, and he should be removed from the Senate Armed Services Committee and voted out of office.
And if Cotton didn’t mean what he wrote—if he was speaking loosely or figuratively, despite being a policymaker who understands the power of words, despite being a combat veteran who understands the meaning of the terms he used, despite being a law school graduate trained to think and speak with rigor—then he should clarify and apologize. Right away.