thebulwark--2020-06-05--The Riots and the Fragility of Civilization

The widespread protests over the last week began as a response to a grave wrong in modern America .
The death of George Floyd is a tragedy .
Racial injustice is real and intolerable .
It is abhorrent that so many Americans mistrust law enforcement—often rightfully .
In some cases , as we have seen , what began as peaceful protests devolved into violence—from rioters and from law enforcement officers seeking to restore order .
We have seen footage of police cars driving into crowds and other police cars being set on fire .
We have seen businesses—both big corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have seen dozens of police injured , some grievously , and at least one killed .
We have seen protesters and reporters injured , too—shot with tear gas and smoke grenades , and sometimes badly wounded by rubber bullets .
In Beverly Hills last weekend , luxury goods shops along Rodeo Drive were destroyed and plundered as over 2,000 people chanted “ Eat the rich !
” There have been moments of grace , yes , but real pain and ugliness as well .
The violence and destruction that emerged from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they emerged , should cause us to reconsider some of our assumptions—some of the fundamental social facts we misunderstand or take for granted .
In particular , the events of the past week provide a valuable reminder of the fragility of our civilization and our way of life ; they refute the notion of inevitable human progress ; and they underscore the way in which a truly civilized society is underpinned by a respect for equal human dignity—without which we are lost .
First , the fragility of civilization .
Many of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps even the peace and prosperity—we enjoy are somehow natural , the default state of things .
Students of history , of course , know otherwise .
And even before the events of the last week , 2020 has been an education in overturning such comfortable assumptions .
The riots remind us that civilization and community are not foregone conclusions .
They do not simply spring up from the earth , but are the work of centuries ; they are the fruit of institutional and social arrangements that must be cultivated and nurtured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democratic governments in particular depend upon most individuals choosing to follow the law , respect their fellow citizens , and act for the common good .
As we saw over the last week , when even just a few citizens choose not to do so , chaos ensues .
Second , the riots also refute the conceit of human progress—the notion that we are continually evolving to have moral and ethical codes superior to those of our forebears .
In his autobiographical book Surprised by Joy , C.S .
Lewis referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snobbery ” — “ the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.
” Whether today or two millennia ago , the right conditions can unleash the worst of human nature .
We remain as vulnerable to fear and rage and tribalism and a “ mob mentality ” as we have ever been .
Social science research suggests that when people act in groups , individuals suppress their moral codes and dispel some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and destruction .
Relatedly , research also suggests that the sense of self—and the individual moral codes that come with it—are diminished in crowds .
Anonymity is easier to maintain in large groups , and responsibility is easier to spread across large numbers .
Thanks especially to advances in technology , our overall standards of living have risen dramatically in the last several hundred years .
But it is a mistake to think that because our species is improving materially , we are also improving socially and morally .
The chaos we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week reminds us of the truth of an unchanging human nature .
We each have within us tremendous capacity for both good and evil , and just as in the past every moment of every day we are forced to choose between them .
Our political and social arrangements do not eliminate our baser , selfish natures—but they do limit them , allowing our social , cooperative natures to flourish .
And it is for this reason that they are so important .
Finally , the events of recent days should provoke us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about , and respond to issues of racial injustice .
Our public discourse must be reoriented toward an acknowledgment of our shared humanity and the irreducible dignity and worth we each hold as persons .
This message of recommitting to recognizing our shared humanity and respecting one another accordingly has promoted healing in the face of gross injustice and racial violence before .
On the night of April 4 , 1968 , parts of many American cities were engulfed in flames .
Martin Luther King had been assassinated that evening , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , too .
In Indianapolis , Senator Robert F. Kennedy was about to deliver a stump speech as part of his presidential campaign .
He would be speaking to a large , predominately African-American , audience .
It was his unhappy task to inform them of the tragic , infuriating news .
We would do well to learn from how he did so .
Kennedy reminded his listeners of the way in which Martin Luther King had dedicated his life to—and died for—the message of love and justice .
“ In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in this difficult time for the United States , it ’ s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in .
.
.
.
What we need in the United States is not division ; what we need in the United States is not hatred ; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness , but is love , and wisdom , and compassion toward one another ; and a feeling of justice toward those who still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be white or whether they be black.
” He then encouraged the crowd to go home in peace and to pray for the family of Martin Luther King and for our nation .
RFK ’ s words of grace , healing , and reconciliation are widely credited for the relative peace Indianapolis experienced that evening , while other cities across the country saw destruction .
Kennedy ’ s words—and Martin Luther King ’ s example—are what we need today .
G.K. Chesterton ’ s poignant insight into why we each bear dignity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When we say that people are equal , we mean something like what we mean when we say pennies are equal : When we say that all pennies are equal , we do not mean that they all look exactly the same .
We mean that they are absolutely equal in their one absolute character , in the most important thing about them .
It may be put practically by saying that they are coins of a certain value .
.
.
.
It may be put symbolically , and even mystically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the image of the King .
And , though the most mystical , it is also the most practical summary of [ human ] equality that all men bear the image of the King of Kings .
Only by constantly keeping in mind the irreducible dignity of our fellow man will we be able to navigate the fraught but necessary conversations in the days to come .
Like civilization itself , the idea that we possess an irreducible dignity that makes each of us—no matter our race or wealth or social status or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Much like the maintenance of civilization , we must work tirelessly to keep it in view .

The widespread protests over the last week began as a response to a grave wrong in modern America. The death of George Floyd is a tragedy. Racial injustice is real and intolerable. It is abhorrent that so many Americans mistrust law enforcement—often rightfully.
In some cases, as we have seen, what began as peaceful protests devolved into violence—from rioters and from law enforcement officers seeking to restore order. We have seen footage of police cars driving into crowds and other police cars being set on fire. We have seen businesses—both big corporations and small family-owned stores—looted and destroyed. We have seen dozens of police injured, some grievously, and at least one killed. We have seen protesters and reporters injured, too—shot with tear gas and smoke grenades, and sometimes badly wounded by rubber bullets. In Beverly Hills last weekend, luxury goods shops along Rodeo Drive were destroyed and plundered as over 2,000 people chanted “Eat the rich!” There have been moments of grace, yes, but real pain and ugliness as well.
The violence and destruction that emerged from the protests, and the speed with which they emerged, should cause us to reconsider some of our assumptions—some of the fundamental social facts we misunderstand or take for granted. In particular, the events of the past week provide a valuable reminder of the fragility of our civilization and our way of life; they refute the notion of inevitable human progress; and they underscore the way in which a truly civilized society is underpinned by a respect for equal human dignity—without which we are lost.
First, the fragility of civilization. Many of us ordinarily and unthinkingly assume that the civilization—and perhaps even the peace and prosperity—we enjoy are somehow natural, the default state of things. Students of history, of course, know otherwise. And even before the events of the last week, 2020 has been an education in overturning such comfortable assumptions.
The riots remind us that civilization and community are not foregone conclusions. They do not simply spring up from the earth, but are the work of centuries; they are the fruit of institutional and social arrangements that must be cultivated and nurtured in our every interaction, every day. Democratic governments in particular depend upon most individuals choosing to follow the law, respect their fellow citizens, and act for the common good. As we saw over the last week, when even just a few citizens choose not to do so, chaos ensues.
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, the riots also refute the conceit of human progress—the notion that we are continually evolving to have moral and ethical codes superior to those of our forebears. In his autobiographical book Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis referred to this way of thinking as “chronological snobbery”—“the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.”
Whether today or two millennia ago, the right conditions can unleash the worst of human nature. We remain as vulnerable to fear and rage and tribalism and a “mob mentality” as we have ever been. Social science research suggests that when people act in groups, individuals suppress their moral codes and dispel some of the social and societal constraints that otherwise inhibit violence and destruction. Relatedly, research also suggests that the sense of self—and the individual moral codes that come with it—are diminished in crowds. Anonymity is easier to maintain in large groups, and responsibility is easier to spread across large numbers.
Thanks especially to advances in technology, our overall standards of living have risen dramatically in the last several hundred years. But it is a mistake to think that because our species is improving materially, we are also improving socially and morally. The chaos we observed across the country over the last week reminds us of the truth of an unchanging human nature. We each have within us tremendous capacity for both good and evil, and just as in the past every moment of every day we are forced to choose between them. Our political and social arrangements do not eliminate our baser, selfish natures—but they do limit them, allowing our social, cooperative natures to flourish. And it is for this reason that they are so important.
Finally, the events of recent days should provoke us to reflect on how we think, talk about, and respond to issues of racial injustice. Our public discourse must be reoriented toward an acknowledgment of our shared humanity and the irreducible dignity and worth we each hold as persons.
This message of recommitting to recognizing our shared humanity and respecting one another accordingly has promoted healing in the face of gross injustice and racial violence before. On the night of April 4, 1968, parts of many American cities were engulfed in flames. Martin Luther King had been assassinated that evening, and as word spread, violence and destruct did, too. In Indianapolis, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was about to deliver a stump speech as part of his presidential campaign. He would be speaking to a large, predominately African-American, audience. It was his unhappy task to inform them of the tragic, infuriating news.
We would do well to learn from how he did so. Kennedy reminded his listeners of the way in which Martin Luther King had dedicated his life to—and died for—the message of love and justice. “In this difficult day,” Kennedy said, “in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. . . . What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another; and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.” He then encouraged the crowd to go home in peace and to pray for the family of Martin Luther King and for our nation.
RFK’s words of grace, healing, and reconciliation are widely credited for the relative peace Indianapolis experienced that evening, while other cities across the country saw destruction. Kennedy’s words—and Martin Luther King’s example—are what we need today.
G.K. Chesterton’s poignant insight into why we each bear dignity and are worthy of respect—despite deep difference—is salient. When we say that people are equal, we mean something like what we mean when we say pennies are equal:
When we say that all pennies are equal, we do not mean that they all look exactly the same. We mean that they are absolutely equal in their one absolute character, in the most important thing about them. It may be put practically by saying that they are coins of a certain value. . . . It may be put symbolically, and even mystically, by saying that they all bear the image of the King. And, though the most mystical, it is also the most practical summary of [human] equality that all men bear the image of the King of Kings.
Only by constantly keeping in mind the irreducible dignity of our fellow man will we be able to navigate the fraught but necessary conversations in the days to come.
Like civilization itself, the idea that we possess an irreducible dignity that makes each of us—no matter our race or wealth or social status or abilities—worthy of respect is not natural. Much like the maintenance of civilization, we must work tirelessly to keep it in view.


thebulwark--2020-06-05--Police and Systemic Racism: Suggestions for Reform

The killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer—who has been criminally charged and denied bail , along with three police colleagues who stood by and did nothing—and the case of Breonna Taylor , the EMT in Louisville who was killed when police shot 20 rounds into her apartment while executing a search warrant on the wrong residence , leave open many questions , including : What can the federal government do to stop systemic racism in the nation ’ s police forces ?
1 ) The Supreme Court could loosen the judge-made protections of “ qualified immunity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ constitutional rights .
As a matter of sheer coincidence , the Court is poised this term to decide a handful of cases on the question of whether police officers who violate someone ’ s constitutional rights can get off the hook for money damages on the theory that the officer didn ’ t know at the time that the particular conduct in question was unconstitutional .
Keep in mind that the Constitution—including the Fourth Amendment ’ s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures—is , to use a technical legal term , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and courts are tasked with deciding , in hindsight , whether a government defendant in a lawsuit made a constitutional mistake .
Under the qualified immunity doctrine , if an officer successfully shows that a particular maneuver was not banned under “ clearly established ” law , he can not be sued .
By way of example , in one of the cases pending before the court , Baxter v. Bracey , a police officer unleashed a police dog on a suspect while he was sitting with his hands in the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s exposed armpit , sending him to the emergency room .
There was already a case on the books holding that it was unconstitutional for the police to release a dog on a suspect who had surrendered by lying down .
The Supreme Court is poised to decide in Baxter whether knowing that it was illegal to use an attack dog to apprehend a suspect in a “ lying down ” surrender was a sufficient heads-up for police to likewise know not to use an attack dog to apprehend a suspect in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court decides “ no , ” then the lawsuit against the officer will be dismissed .
The next officer who sends a dog after a suspect with his hands up would be liable in that instance , but not this one .
And if a future police officer were to send an attack dog after someone who , say , puts her hands against a wall in surrender , that officer may or may not successfully claim that Baxter was clearly established law forbidding such conduct .
The governing statute for constitutional claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no immunity provisions .
Judges made it up over the years .
The rationale is that if police officers had to second-guess every action in urgent scenarios , they would fail to act when they should , and public safety would suffer .
As with most constitutional balancing tests , the analysis is highly subjective .
The Supreme Court could decide to change it , particularly in the wake of the recent , high-profile police killings of innocent black Americans .
But in a Yale University law journal article from 2017 , scholars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served its intended role ” ; it ’ s unusual for a civil case of police brutality to be thrown out of court on grounds of qualified immunity , leaving officers exposed to the cost , burden , and expense of discovery and litigation anyway .
In short , the doctrine appears not to be working to protect police from the distractions of litigation or to motivate them to comply with the Constitution .
Either way , the Court probably needs to refashion its rule .
The Supreme Court has also created a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipal police departments ( as opposed to individuals ) for having discriminatory policies , but absent a “ smoking gun ” document , plaintiffs have a hard time proving the legal standard : that the police officers in a department were so inadequately trained or supervised that it amounted to deliberate indifference by the city .
2 ) The Department of Justice under Attorney General Barr could return to the Obama administration ’ s aggressive use of court-enforced consent agreements to revamp police departments with histories of civil rights violations .
On November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , former attorney general Jeff Sessions signed a memorandum officially directing DOJ to pull back on its use of investigations , lawsuits , and consent decrees to address civil rights abuses by state and local police departments .
Sessions rationalized that federal supervision “ can deprive the elected representatives of the people of the affected jurisdiction of control of their government.
” He imposed a series of new requirements before DOJ can take action against systemic bad cop-ism , including that top political brass sign off on any consent deals , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date .
Barr could—and should—immediately order an investigation into the Minneapolis police department now that things have gotten so brazenly out of hand .
But his boss , President Trump , has publicly encouraged police not to be “ too nice ” with people suspected of criminal wrongdoing , and Barr himself warned in December that “ if communities don ’ t give [ police ] support and respect , they may find themselves without the police protection they need.
” If America wants police reform , voters need a new DOJ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 ) Congress could amend federal law to change the standards for immunizing police officers and police departments from liability , to enhance funding for training and federal supervision , and to mandate greater oversight and enforcement of the federal civil rights laws .
The law that gives people the right to sue state and local officers—known as “ Section 1983 ” for its location in the U.S. Code ( linked above ) —was originally known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 , passed to help formerly enslaved people enforce new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Section 1983 was also the legal workhorse of the civil rights era , when in 1961 the Supreme Court issued a decision that substantially expanded its reach .
Among the many urgent policies that we need a functioning Congress to address , this is yet another one .
While Congress is at it , it could pass legislation regulating the use of police body cameras and other surveillance methods to monitor and audit the activity of police—not just to use them after the fact to determine which version of a dispute between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Research should be done on the impact of widespread civilian firearms possession on police officers ’ readiness to use guns in routine law enforcement .
Clearly , there is a huge and ugly problem with race in America , and it has infected police forces for far too long .
But we also have a gun problem , with an average of 42 people dying every day from gun violence in 2019 , a 3 percent increase over the previous year .
When Congress passed what ’ s known as the Dickey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal funding to promote gun control , research dollars for public health entities , like the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health , to investigate gun violence stopped .
After a twenty-year hiatus , Congress finally passed a spending bill in December of last year that allowed the two agencies to share $ 25 million for gun-violence research .
That number should be much higher , and it should go to studying racial prejudice in law enforcement , as well as the psychological impact of policing amidst an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States as of 2012—a figure that represents a whopping 40 percent of the entire firearms inventory worldwide .
As James Madison famously said in Federalist No .
51 , “ If men were angels , no government would be necessary.
” It ’ s up to the citizenry to force government to do the right thing when it comes to racist policing—and the only reliable way to do so is at the ballot box .

The killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer—who has been criminally charged and denied bail, along with three police colleagues who stood by and did nothing—and the case of Breonna Taylor, the EMT in Louisville who was killed when police shot 20 rounds into her apartment while executing a search warrant on the wrong residence, leave open many questions, including: What can the federal government do to stop systemic racism in the nation’s police forces?
On the legal matters, here’s a starter list.
1) The Supreme Court could loosen the judge-made protections of “qualified immunity” for law enforcement officers who violate individuals’ constitutional rights.
As a matter of sheer coincidence, the Court is poised this term to decide a handful of cases on the question of whether police officers who violate someone’s constitutional rights can get off the hook for money damages on the theory that the officer didn’t know at the time that the particular conduct in question was unconstitutional.
Keep in mind that the Constitution—including the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures—is, to use a technical legal term, “squishy.” New factual scenarios arise constantly, and courts are tasked with deciding, in hindsight, whether a government defendant in a lawsuit made a constitutional mistake. Under the qualified immunity doctrine, if an officer successfully shows that a particular maneuver was not banned under “clearly established” law, he cannot be sued.
By way of example, in one of the cases pending before the Court, Baxter v. Bracey, a police officer unleashed a police dog on a suspect while he was sitting with his hands in the air. The dog bit the man’s exposed armpit, sending him to the emergency room. There was already a case on the books holding that it was unconstitutional for the police to release a dog on a suspect who had surrendered by lying down.
The Supreme Court is poised to decide in Baxter whether knowing that it was illegal to use an attack dog to apprehend a suspect in a “lying down” surrender was a sufficient heads-up for police to likewise know not to use an attack dog to apprehend a suspect in a “hands-up” surrender. If the Court decides “no,” then the lawsuit against the officer will be dismissed. The next officer who sends a dog after a suspect with his hands up would be liable in that instance, but not this one. And if a future police officer were to send an attack dog after someone who, say, puts her hands against a wall in surrender, that officer may or may not successfully claim that Baxter was clearly established law forbidding such conduct.
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 governing statute for constitutional claims against local police—42 U.S.C. § 1983—contains no immunity provisions. Judges made it up over the years. The rationale is that if police officers had to second-guess every action in urgent scenarios, they would fail to act when they should, and public safety would suffer. As with most constitutional balancing tests, the analysis is highly subjective. The Supreme Court could decide to change it, particularly in the wake of the recent, high-profile police killings of innocent black Americans.
But in a Yale University law journal article from 2017, scholars concluded that qualified immunity has “rarely served its intended role”; it’s unusual for a civil case of police brutality to be thrown out of court on grounds of qualified immunity, leaving officers exposed to the cost, burden, and expense of discovery and litigation anyway. In short, the doctrine appears not to be working to protect police from the distractions of litigation or to motivate them to comply with the Constitution. Either way, the Court probably needs to refashion its rule.
The Supreme Court has also created a relatively complex series of rules for suing municipal police departments (as opposed to individuals) for having discriminatory policies, but absent a “smoking gun” document, plaintiffs have a hard time proving the legal standard: that the police officers in a department were so inadequately trained or supervised that it amounted to deliberate indifference by the city.
2) The Department of Justice under Attorney General Barr could return to the Obama administration’s aggressive use of court-enforced consent agreements to revamp police departments with histories of civil rights violations.
On November 7, 2018, shortly before leaving office, former attorney general Jeff Sessions signed a memorandum officially directing DOJ to pull back on its use of investigations, lawsuits, and consent decrees to address civil rights abuses by state and local police departments. Sessions rationalized that federal supervision “can deprive the elected representatives of the people of the affected jurisdiction of control of their government.” He imposed a series of new requirements before DOJ can take action against systemic bad cop-ism, including that top political brass sign off on any consent deals, and that any agreements must have a termination date.
Barr could—and should—immediately order an investigation into the Minneapolis police department now that things have gotten so brazenly out of hand. But his boss, President Trump, has publicly encouraged police not to be “too nice” with people suspected of criminal wrongdoing, and Barr himself warned in December that “if communities don’t give [police] support and respect, they may find themselves without the police protection they need.”
If America wants police reform, voters need a new DOJ. But that requires a new president.
3) Congress could amend federal law to change the standards for immunizing police officers and police departments from liability, to enhance funding for training and federal supervision, and to mandate greater oversight and enforcement of the federal civil rights laws.
The law that gives people the right to sue state and local officers—known as “Section 1983” for its location in the U.S. Code (linked above)—was originally known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, passed to help formerly enslaved people enforce new constitutional rights enshrined after the Civil War. Section 1983 was also the legal workhorse of the civil rights era, when in 1961 the Supreme Court issued a decision that substantially expanded its reach. Among the many urgent policies that we need a functioning Congress to address, this is yet another one.
While Congress is at it, it could pass legislation regulating the use of police body cameras and other surveillance methods to monitor and audit the activity of police—not just to use them after the fact to determine which version of a dispute between officer and suspect was accurate.
4) Research should be done on the impact of widespread civilian firearms possession on police officers’ readiness to use guns in routine law enforcement.
Clearly, there is a huge and ugly problem with race in America, and it has infected police forces for far too long. But we also have a gun problem, with an average of 42 people dying every day from gun violence in 2019, a 3 percent increase over the previous year. When Congress passed what’s known as the Dickey Amendment in 1996 banning the use of federal funding to promote gun control, research dollars for public health entities, like the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, to investigate gun violence stopped. After a twenty-year hiatus, Congress finally passed a spending bill in December of last year that allowed the two agencies to share $25 million for gun-violence research. That number should be much higher, and it should go to studying racial prejudice in law enforcement, as well as the psychological impact of policing amidst an estimated 270 million privately owned guns in the United States as of 2012—a figure that represents a whopping 40 percent of the entire firearms inventory worldwide.
As James Madison famously said in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” It’s up to the citizenry to force government to do the right thing when it comes to racist policing—and the only reliable way to do so is at the ballot box.


thebulwark--2020-06-05--This Isn’t the America I Signed Up For

This Isn’t the America I Signed Up For

This is not the America I signed up for , and I literally signed up for America .
I arrived in God ’ s heaven on earth six years ago , with two suitcases , no money , and a letter of acceptance to Arizona State University .
I had a handful of distant relatives far away from Arizona , but I didn ’ t come here for them .
I didn ’ t come here because I wanted to “ succeed ” in life , either , or make an impact on the world .
I came to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had never lived a life of liberty and equality of rights .
I came here because the hopelessness of life in the country I grew up in had led me to attempt suicide , twice .
I came here , literally , because of the words of Abraham Lincoln , who convinced me that America was the last , best hope of earth—and the only hope for me .
Because America is a nation , conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal .
I came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my rulers , just as I was done being superior for being an ethnic majority in Iran .
Ever since that day , I have known that Lincoln was right .
Upon arriving at ASU , I joined the College Republicans .
I was not a conservative .
I was Mr. Conservative .
I adored conservatism .
I had grown up in an Islamist country and been raised by loving Marxist-Leninist parents .
I rebelled against both strains of illiberalism and fell deep down the rabbit hole not of Republican politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Weekly Standard , Commentary , National Affairs , National Review .
I was one of those weird college kids who thought that embarking a pilgrimage to the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute would be way more fun than Cancun on spring break .
While other freshmen were joining fraternities , I founded chapters for AEI and the Alexander Hamilton Society at ASU .
The draw of the conservative movement for me was George W. Bush .
My parents are former political prisoners from Iran ’ s Islamist regime .
Literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mullahs about was that Bush was Satan .
But , as a kid , when I listened to President Bush speak , he didn ’ t sound anything like the Great Satan .
I was a teenager in Iran following 9/11 , and George W. Bush declared that I was as much the child of God as anybody else .
He didn ’ t tell the world—rather , he told me , personally , from his heart to mine—that the brown Middle Eastern teenager deserved as much liberty and equality as any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a refugee from an oppressive regime , you can not understand how powerful this message , from that man , was .
I fell in love with America then , and this love increases every day that I ’ m blessed to live in this greatest nation .
And , in return , I feel like it ’ s my duty to help make America more American .
It breaks my heart to see the treatment of young black men , who are murdered for no reason .
It disgusts me to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Iranian regime treated me , when I marched on the streets in 2009 .
I was struck this week when President Trump had the peaceful protestors forcibly removed from Lafayette Park so that he could stage a photo op , in which he used the Christian religion as a political weapon the way the mullahs have exploited Islam for four decades .
Contrast this moment with President Bush , who , after 9/11 , took off his shoes and walked into a mosque to remind us that Americans of all religions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not perpetrators or sympathizers .
One of these men was trying to make America more American .
And one of them is trying to turn it into something different .
Something that I recognize .
Remember : I grew up in Iran .
The violation of Americans ’ Constitutional right to assembly disgusts me like nothing in my life .
Sure , I have seen worse in Iran—much , much worse .
But I expected that .
In fact , I expected nothing but police brutality , discrimination , and oppression in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural state of an illiberal regime .
To see anything similar in America , even if a fraction of it ?
It ’ s not natural ; it ’ s disgusting .
And it is disgusting not because America has suddenly become evil , but because the government of the United States is betraying Americanism—its ideals , its beauty , its generosity , its kindness .
Republicans , conservatives , those of you who spent the 2000s parroting President Bush ’ s sincere call for liberty , equality , and compassion , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Founding principles is not patriotism .
Tax cuts , deregulation , and judges may be nice things , but they aren ’ t what makes America , America .
America was never about any of those things .
It was about liberty and equality of rights .
Like all human projects , America has always been—and always will be—imperfect .
Our Constitution opens with : A more perfect Union !
Just because our ideals haven ’ t been fully met , it doesn ’ t mean we stop seeking them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfection .
All they asked was that each generation endeavor to inch closer toward it , always uncovering the flaws , and always trying to fix them .
We owe it to the Founding Fathers , to those who came before us and made it better for us .
We owe it to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman , to Teddy Roosevelt and Susan B. Anthony , to Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson , to Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan .
And we owe it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
President Trump ’ s apologists and enablers are not inching us closer to perfection .
They are encouraging a fast and accelerating retreat in the opposite direction .
Lincoln is my first love , but let me close with the words of George Washington , in his beautiful Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport :

This is not the America I signed up for, and I literally signed up for America.
I arrived in God’s heaven on earth six years ago, with two suitcases, no money, and a letter of acceptance to Arizona State University. I had a handful of distant relatives far away from Arizona, but I didn’t come here for them.
I didn’t come here because I wanted to “succeed” in life, either, or make an impact on the world.
I came to America because I wanted to breathe. Because I had never lived a life of liberty and equality of rights. I came here because the hopelessness of life in the country I grew up in had led me to attempt suicide, twice. I came here, literally, because of the words of Abraham Lincoln, who convinced me that America was the last, best hope of earth—and the only hope for me. Because America is a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. I came here because I was done being inferior to my rulers, just as I was done being superior for being an ethnic majority in Iran.
Ever since that day, I have known that Lincoln was right.
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…
Upon arriving at ASU, I joined the College Republicans. I was not a conservative. I was Mr. Conservative. I adored conservatism. I had grown up in an Islamist country and been raised by loving Marxist-Leninist parents. I rebelled against both strains of illiberalism and fell deep down the rabbit hole not of Republican politics, but conservative thought. I pored over the Weekly Standard, Commentary, National Affairs, National Review. I was one of those weird college kids who thought that embarking on a pilgrimage to the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute would be way more fun than Cancun on spring break. While other freshmen were joining fraternities, I founded chapters for AEI and the Alexander Hamilton Society at ASU.
Yeah, I know.
The draw of the conservative movement for me was George W. Bush.
My parents are former political prisoners from Iran’s Islamist regime. Literally the only thing they ever agreed with the mullahs about was that Bush was Satan.
But, as a kid, when I listened to President Bush speak, he didn’t sound anything like the Great Satan. I was a teenager in Iran following 9/11, and George W. Bush declared that I was as much a child of God as anybody else. He didn’t tell the world—rather, he told me, personally, from his heart to mine—that the brown Middle Eastern teenager deserved as much liberty and equality as any white kid in America.
Unless you are a refugee from an oppressive regime, you cannot understand how powerful this message, from that man, was.
I fell in love with America then, and this love increases every day that I’m blessed to live in this greatest nation.
And, in return, I feel like it’s my duty to help make America more American. It breaks my heart to see young black men murdered for no reason. It disgusts me to see peaceful protesters treated the same way that the Iranian regime treated me when I marched on the streets in 2009.
I was struck this week when President Trump had the peaceful protesters forcibly removed from the area near Lafayette Square so that he could stage a photo op in which he used the Christian religion as a political weapon the way the mullahs have exploited Islam for four decades.
Contrast this moment with President Bush, who, after 9/11, took off his shoes and walked into a mosque to remind us that Americans of all religions were the victims of that great tragedy and not perpetrators or sympathizers.
One of these men was trying to make America more American. And one of them is trying to turn it into something different.
Something that I recognize. Remember: I grew up in Iran.
The violation of Americans’ constitutional right to assembly disgusts me like nothing in my life. Sure, I have seen worse in Iran—much, much worse. But I expected that. In fact, I expected nothing but police brutality, discrimination, and oppression in Iran. Because that’s the natural state of an illiberal regime.
To see anything similar in America, even if a fraction of it? It’s not natural; it’s disgusting. And it is disgusting not because America has suddenly become evil, but because the government of the United States is betraying Americanism—its ideals, its beauty, its generosity, its kindness.
Republicans, conservatives, those of you who spent the 2000s parroting President Bush’s sincere call for liberty, equality, and compassion, where are you? This betrayal of America’s Founding principles is not patriotism. Tax cuts, deregulation, and judges may be nice things, but they aren’t what makes America, America.
America was never about any of those things. It was about liberty and equality of rights.
Like all human projects, America has always been—and always will be—imperfect. Our Constitution opens with:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A more perfect Union! Just because our ideals haven’t been fully met doesn’t mean we stop seeking them. The Framers knew we would never reach perfection. All they asked was that each generation endeavor to inch closer toward it, always uncovering the flaws, and always trying to fix them.
We owe it to the Founding Fathers, to those who came before us and made it better for us. We owe it to Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, to Teddy Roosevelt and Susan B. Anthony, to Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson, to Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan. And we owe it to those who will come after us, too.
President Trump’s apologists and enablers are not inching us closer to perfection. They are encouraging a fast and accelerating retreat in the opposite direction.
Lincoln is my first love, but let me close with the words of George Washington, in his beautiful Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Amen.


Trump’s Authoritarian Impulse

A mix of federal and local law enforcement officers , including Secret Service and National Guard personnel , used tear gas , rubber pellets , and smoke grenades to clear peaceful protesters from the area just north of Lafayette Square—so that Trump could pose in front of a fire-damaged church holding a Bible aloft , a blasphemous fusion of religiosity and untrammeled power in which the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff served as human props .
Autocracy became theater .
Trump ’ s naked abuse of the military shocked retired Marine general and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest : From the beginning , Donald Trump told us who he is : an aspiring autocrat who , if he could , would squelch any constraints on his authority .
That ’ s why he so volubly admires foreign leaders who oppress and murder their own people—Vladimir Putin , Rodrigo Duterte , the Chinese autocrats who showed “ the power of strength ” by their brutality in Tiananmen Square .
Beyond peradventure , their unbridled dominance speaks to his innermost cravings .
Like so many of history ’ s gargoyles , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mayo Clinic : “ A mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance , a deep need for excessive attention and admiration , troubled relationships , and a lack of empathy for others.
” The symptoms define Donald Trump .
An exaggerated sense of self-importance .
An unwarranted belief in his own superiority .
A preoccupation with fantasies of his own success , power , and brilliance .
A consuming sense of entitlement .
A refusal to acknowledge error .
An inability to tolerate criticism or critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules .
And , above all , the need to trample anything that might expose him as weak and inadequate .
Such a person must , out of iron necessity , force the external world to conform to his inner imperatives .
For Trump , autocracy is not a preference , but a passion .
All who thwart him must be banished .
Not only is Trump incapable of changing who he is—he needs to show us .
“ I alone can fix it , ” he proclaimed in accepting the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting down disorder : “ I have a message for all of you : the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon—I mean very soon—come to an end.
” The 2016 campaign marked a malign melding of Trump ’ s pathologies with those of his party .
Trump ran not by seeking consensus , but by exploiting a growing strain of authoritarianism among the Republican electorate , wherein his megalomaniacal prescriptions fused with their cravings for stern and simple answers .
Prior to Trump ’ s election , a study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among voters correlated with support for Trump .
Amanda Taub described this phenomenon in early 2016 : After decades of cultivating a resentment of government while placing it at the disposal of wealthy donors , the GOP was ripe for takeover by a pseudo-populist demagogue who scorns constitutional constraints .
In Surviving Autocracy , Masha Gessen writes , “ No powerful political actor had set out to destroy the American political system itself—until , that is , Trump won the Republican nomination .
He was probably the first major party nominee who ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once in office , Trump acted out his psychic script by relentlessly hacking at the sinews of constitutional democracy .
He turned the Justice Department from into a weapon against those who explored his suspect ties to Russia—and an ally to his felonious friends .
He fired inspectors general charged with overseeing his and his underlings ’ discharge of office .
He has ceaselessly attacked journalists , and suborned the independence of the military .
He is trying to rig the 2020 election by opposing voting by mail .
He has accelerated his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judiciary .
He has purged his government and his party to eliminate all who do not serve his voracious cult of personality .
It is no surprise , therefore , that he turned protests emanating from the tragic murder of George Floyd into fresh pretexts for authoritarianism , both rhetorical and real .
“ When the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” he threatened .
Protesters outside the White House , he crowed , would be greeted with “ the most vicious dogs , and most ominous weapons.
” He mocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of disorder , and threatened to dispatch American soldiers to their states : “ If a city or 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.
” Whether or not he does that , Trump is seeking reelection as an American caudillo willing to bust through the guardrails of democracy .
By doing so , he normalizes contempt for democracy itself .
Ezra Klein puts it well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support of his party : the cowardly and cynical officeholders bent only on survival ; a base aroused by cravings for order ; the self-serving plutocrats who care only that he protects their interests .
This is how democracies wither .
Whom can we depend on ?
Not the courts ; nor a Congress where one chamber , the Senate , cravenly serves Trump ’ s whims ; nor the Constitution which , however ingenious , is not self-executing .
We have only ourselves , and the deadline is five months away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lament : “ We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square .
We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.
” Would that we do , before America ’ s moment passes .

Last Monday, Donald Trump treated America to a fascist tableau.
A mix of federal and local law enforcement officers, including Secret Service and National Guard personnel, used tear gas, rubber pellets, and smoke grenades to clear peaceful protesters from the area just north of Lafayette Square—so that Trump could pose in front of a fire-damaged church holding a Bible aloft, a blasphemous fusion of religiosity and untrammeled power in which the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff served as human props. Autocracy became theater.
Trump’s naked abuse of the military shocked retired Marine general and former secretary of defense James Mattis into anguished protest:
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo-op for the elected commander-in-chief with military leadership standing alongside.
Believe it.
From the beginning, Donald Trump told us who he is: an aspiring autocrat who, if he could, would squelch any constraints on his authority. That’s why he so volubly admires foreign leaders who oppress and murder their own people—Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, the Chinese autocrats who showed “the power of strength” by their brutality in Tiananmen Square. Beyond peradventure, their unbridled dominance speaks to his innermost cravings.
Like so many of history’s gargoyles, Trump personifies narcissistic personality disorder as described by the Mayo Clinic: “A mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others.”
The symptoms define Donald Trump. An exaggerated sense of self-importance. An unwarranted belief in his own superiority. A preoccupation with fantasies of his own success, power, and brilliance. A consuming sense of entitlement.
A refusal to acknowledge error. An inability to tolerate criticism or critics. A belief that he is above the rules. And, above all, the need to trample anything that might expose him as weak and inadequate.
Such a person must, out of iron necessity, force the external world to conform to his inner imperatives. For Trump, autocracy is not a preference, but a passion. All who thwart him must be banished.
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…
Not only is Trump incapable of changing who he is—he needs to show us. “I alone can fix it,” he proclaimed in accepting the GOP nomination, and proceeded to fantasize about putting down disorder: “I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon—I mean very soon—come to an end.”
The 2016 campaign marked a malign melding of Trump’s pathologies with those of his party. Trump ran not by seeking consensus, but by exploiting a growing strain of authoritarianism among the Republican electorate, wherein his megalomaniacal prescriptions fused with their cravings for stern and simple answers.
Prior to Trump’s election, a study by Matthew MacWilliams found that authoritarian leanings among voters correlated with support for Trump. Amanda Taub described this phenomenon in early 2016:
Trump’s specific policies aren’t the thing that most sets him apart. . . . Rather, it’s his rhetoric and style. The way he reduces everything to black-and-white extremes of strong versus weak, greatest versus worst. His simple, direct promises that he can solve problems that other politicians are too weak to manage. And, perhaps most importantly, his willingness to flout all the conventions of civilized discourse when it comes to the minority groups that authoritarians find so threatening.
After decades of cultivating a resentment of government while placing it at the disposal of wealthy donors, the GOP was ripe for takeover by a pseudo-populist demagogue who scorns constitutional constraints. In Surviving Autocracy, Masha Gessen writes, “No powerful political actor had set out to destroy the American political system itself—until, that is, Trump won the Republican nomination. He was probably the first major party nominee who ran not for president but for autocrat.”
Once in office, Trump acted out his psychic script by relentlessly hacking at the sinews of constitutional democracy. He turned the Justice Department from into a weapon against those who explored his suspect ties to Russia—and an ally to his felonious friends. He fired inspectors general charged with overseeing his and his underlings’ discharge of office. He has ceaselessly attacked journalists, and suborned the independence of the military. He is trying to rig the 2020 election by opposing voting by mail. He has accelerated his party’s politicization of the federal judiciary. He has purged his government and his party to eliminate all who do not serve his voracious cult of personality.
It is no surprise, therefore, that he turned protests emanating from the tragic murder of George Floyd into fresh pretexts for authoritarianism, both rhetorical and real.
“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he threatened. Protesters outside the White House, he crowed, would be greeted with “the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons.” He mocked governors for being weak in the face of disorder, and threatened to dispatch American soldiers to their states: “If a city or 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.”
Whether or not he does that, Trump is seeking reelection as an American caudillo willing to bust through the guardrails of democracy. By doing so, he normalizes contempt for democracy itself. Ezra Klein puts it well:
What makes Trump successful is what makes him dangerous: He knows only the one thing, and knows it too well. All he can see is division; all he knows is discord; all he can do is escalate. He is the King Midas of strife, turning the country he leads into the thing he believes we are, the thing he himself is.
Worse, he can count on the support of his party: the cowardly and cynical officeholders bent only on survival; a base aroused by cravings for order; the self-serving plutocrats who care only that he protects their interests. This is how democracies wither.
Whom can we depend on? Not the courts; nor a Congress where one chamber, the Senate, cravenly serves Trump’s whims; nor the Constitution which, however ingenious, is not self-executing.
We have only ourselves, and the deadline is five months away. As James Mattis said in concluding his lament: “We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
Would that we do, before America’s moment passes.


thebulwark--2020-06-05--The ‘Khakistocracy’ Tries to Save America

In the past few days , 16 stars-worth of retired flag and general officers have taken to the pages of prominent websites to voice their opposition to President Donald J. Trump ’ s conduct in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and subsequent protests in cities across America .
Together they constitute an unprecedented chorus of criticism of a sitting president by a group who used to be the highest-ranking members of the U.S. military .
But will their collective opining shift the political calculus in any way or simply become another data point around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided along party lines ?
The sequence of events that compelled all four—a de facto intellectual “ khakistocracy ” —to put pen to paper in rapid succession started on June 1 with a peaceful protest a block away from the White House .
That protest was violently dispersed by D.C. police on horseback , Arlington County Police in full riot garb wielding batons and shields , Secret Service and Park Police officers , and a phalanx of National Guardsmen along H Street chucking smoke grenades and “ flash-bangs ” into marchers caught totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement tactics .
Several protesters and members of the media , including an Australian crew , were assaulted during the chaos .
About 20 minutes later , the reason for the heavy-handed police action was revealed as POTUS strolled off the White House grounds and across Lafayette Square for a photo op that featured him holding a Bible aloft in front of the boarded-up windows of historic St. John ’ s Church .
Trump passed through a gauntlet of cops during the short trips to and from the White House , leading an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who carried the prop Bible in a $ 1,500 handbag ) , the press secretary , and the attorney general .
And also in the official party were the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , corpulence wrapped in his battledress cammies .
The spectacle was too much for the four retired officers—not just Trump jeopardizing the safety of law-abiding Americans in service of a stunt , but also the apparent willingness of the Pentagon ’ s two ranking officials , civilian and uniformed , to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 , Mike Mullen struck first in a piece titled “ I Can not Remain Silent ” in The Atlantic .
The retired four-star Navy admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ( under both Bush 43 and Obama ) writes , “ I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform .
They will serve with skill and with compassion .
They will obey lawful orders .
But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders , the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.
” In a statement cross-posted by The Atlantic a day after the Mullen op-ed went live there , Jim Mattis , a retired four-star Marine Corps general and former secretary of defense under Trump , writes , “ When I joined the military , some 50 years ago , I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , with military leadership standing alongside.
” That same day , Jim Stavridis published an editorial at Time titled “ The U.S. Military Must Stand Up for Its Soul in This Moment.
” There , the retired four-star Navy admiral and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander writes , “ Our senior active duty military leaders must make that case forcefully and directly to national leadership , speaking truth to power in uncomfortable ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their career .
I hope they will do so , and not allow the military to be dragged into the maelstrom that is ahead of us , and which will likely only accelerate between now and November .
If they do not stand and deliver on this vital core value , I fear for the soul of our military and all of the attendant consequences .
We can not afford to have a future Lafayette Square end up looking like Tiananmen Square.
” And still later that same day , retired four-star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commanded the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. forces in Afghanistan , published a piece at Foreign Policy—the longest and arguably the most compelling essay of the four—titled “ A Moment of National Shame and Peril—and Hope.
” Allen starts by framing his concerns in dire terms : “ The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1 , 2020 .
Remember the date .
It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.
” Allen ’ s argument continues with a savage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his phenomenon as he writes , “ [ The President ] sees the crisis as a black problem—not as something to be addressed by creating the basis and impetus for a move toward social justice , but as an opportunity to use force to portray himself as a ‘ law and order ’ president .
The reasons were irrelevant to the opportunity .
Remember the supposed invasion of the southern border and his deployment of federal troops ahead of the 2018 midterm elections ?
The president ’ s failure to understand the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when , on Saturday , he attempted to explain that his supporters , the so-called Make America Great Again ( MAGA ) movement , ‘ love African American people .
They love black people .
MAGA loves the black people.
’ Evidently his movement , MAGA , is a coherent thing , and it ’ s white .
.
.
” Mullen , Mattis , Stavridis , and Allen aren ’ t the first retired generals or admirals to openly criticize the current commander-in-chief , but they are the highest ranking to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing has created a unified front unlike anything the nation ’ s volatile dialectic has had to react to , pro or con , in the era of Trump .
But who might they influence ?
Certainly not Republican lawmakers .
Their only response this week was to scurry past Capitol Hill reporters in fear that if they attempted to answer questions in even the most cryptic terms , they ’ d face Trump ’ s wrath .
( See “ Murkowski , Lisa ” for more on this . )
The GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any way is why the khakistocracy has emerged in the first place .
And certainly not Donald Trump .
The commander-in-tweet immediately took to Twitter like the counterpuncher his supporters unconditionally idolize , first dusting off his “ overrated general ” label for Mattis , and then dragging his former chief of staff John Kelly—another retired Marine Corps four-star—into the fray , asserting in a subsequent tweet that “ he was totally exhausted by the job and in the end just slinked away into obscurity.
” ( Not exactly “ thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , of course , none of the four is naïve enough to believe he could actually influence Trump .
In spite of their direct charges against POTUS , their petitions weren ’ t for him .
No , their editorials were directed at those who hold the positions they once did—the current secretary of defense , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—and America ’ s voters .
At this writing , while the first two have equivocated , one verbally ( “ I didn ’ t know where I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC News when asked about Trump ’ s Bible stunt ) and the other in the form of a letter to the troops reminding them of their duty to the Constitution , neither has had the honor or dignity to resign his post .
It doesn ’ t look like there were any hearts and minds won on that front .
As far as the voters go , we already know , based on previous presidential lunacy , that 35 percent of them will support Trump regardless of what he says or does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t going to change that one bit .
However , the rest of the electorate is in play .
That ’ s where the hope for a return to the ideals they spent their lives defending lives for these four retired officers .
General Allen ends his essay with a question and a call to action rendered in the clearest of terms : “ So , what is to be done ?
At nearly the same moment that Americans were being beaten near the White House on behalf of their president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd visited the site of George ’ s murder .
Overcome with grief and anger , he loudly upbraided the crowd for tarnishing his brother ’ s memory with violence and looting .
And then he told Americans what to do : vote .
‘ Educate yourselves , ’ he said , ‘ there ’ s a lot of us.
’ So , while June 1 could easily be confused with a day of shame and peril if we listen to Donald Trump , if instead we listen to Terrence Floyd , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mark your calendars—this could be the beginning of the change of American democracy not to illiberalism , but to enlightenment .
But it will have to come from the bottom up .
For at the White House , there is no one home .
”

In the past few days, 16 stars-worth of retired flag and general officers have taken to the pages of prominent websites to voice their opposition to President Donald J. Trump’s conduct in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and subsequent protests in cities across America. Together they constitute an unprecedented chorus of criticism of a sitting president by a group who used to be the highest-ranking members of the U.S. military. But will their collective opining shift the political calculus in any way or simply become another data point around the common assertion that the nation is intractably divided along party lines?
The sequence of events that compelled all four—a de facto intellectual “khakistocracy”—to put pen to paper in rapid succession started on June 1 with a peaceful protest a block away from the White House. That protest was violently dispersed by D.C. police on horseback, Arlington County Police in full riot garb wielding batons and shields, Secret Service and Park Police officers, and a phalanx of National Guardsmen along H Street chucking smoke grenades and “flash-bangs” into marchers caught totally off-guard by the rapid shift in law enforcement tactics. Several protesters and members of the media, including an Australian crew, were assaulted during the chaos.
About 20 minutes later, the reason for the heavy-handed police action was revealed as POTUS strolled off the White House grounds and across Lafayette Square for a photo op that featured him holding a Bible aloft in front of the boarded-up windows of historic St. John’s Church. Trump passed through a gauntlet of cops during the short trips to and from the White House, leading an entourage that included Jared, Ivanka (who carried the prop Bible in a $1,500 handbag), the press secretary, and the attorney general. And also in the official party were the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, corpulence wrapped in his battledress cammies.
The spectacle was too much for the four retired officers—not just Trump jeopardizing the safety of law-abiding Americans in service of a stunt, but also the apparent willingness of the Pentagon’s two ranking officials, civilian and uniformed, to take part in the charade.
On June 2, Mike Mullen struck first in a piece titled “I Cannot Remain Silent” in The Atlantic. The retired four-star Navy admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (under both Bush 43 and Obama) writes, “I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion. They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief. . . . Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.”
In a statement cross-posted by The Atlantic a day after the Mullen op-ed went live there, Jim Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps general and former secretary of defense under Trump, writes, “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
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…
That same day, Jim Stavridis published an editorial at Time titled “The U.S. Military Must Stand Up for Its Soul in This Moment.” There, the retired four-star Navy admiral and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander writes, “Our senior active duty military leaders must make that case forcefully and directly to national leadership, speaking truth to power in uncomfortable ways. They must do this at the risk of their career. I hope they will do so, and not allow the military to be dragged into the maelstrom that is ahead of us, and which will likely only accelerate between now and November. If they do not stand and deliver on this vital core value, I fear for the soul of our military and all of the attendant consequences. We cannot afford to have a future Lafayette Square end up looking like Tiananmen Square.”
And still later that same day, retired four-star Marine Corps General John Allen, who commanded the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, published a piece at Foreign Policy—the longest and arguably the most compelling essay of the four—titled “A Moment of National Shame and Peril—and Hope.” Allen starts by framing his concerns in dire terms: “The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020. Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.”
Allen’s argument continues with a savage critique of Trump’s judgment and his phenomenon as he writes, “[The President] sees the crisis as a black problem—not as something to be addressed by creating the basis and impetus for a move toward social justice, but as an opportunity to use force to portray himself as a ‘law and order’ president. The reasons were irrelevant to the opportunity. Remember the supposed invasion of the southern border and his deployment of federal troops ahead of the 2018 midterm elections? The president’s failure to understand the reality of the problem was on full display when, on Saturday, he attempted to explain that his supporters, the so-called Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, ‘love African American people. They love black people. MAGA loves the black people.’ Evidently his movement, MAGA, is a coherent thing, and it’s white . . .”
Mullen, Mattis, Stavridis, and Allen aren’t the first retired generals or admirals to openly criticize the current commander-in-chief, but they are the highest ranking to do it in writing. And their coincident timing has created a unified front unlike anything the nation’s volatile dialectic has had to react to, pro or con, in the era of Trump. But who might they influence?
Certainly not Republican lawmakers. Their only response this week was to scurry past Capitol Hill reporters in fear that if they attempted to answer questions in even the most cryptic terms, they’d face Trump’s wrath. (See “Murkowski, Lisa” for more on this.) The GOP’s unwillingness to counter the President in any way is why the khakistocracy has emerged in the first place.
And certainly not Donald Trump. The commander-in-tweet immediately took to Twitter like the counterpuncher his supporters unconditionally idolize, first dusting off his “overrated general” label for Mattis, and then dragging his former chief of staff John Kelly—another retired Marine Corps four-star—into the fray, asserting in a subsequent tweet that “he was totally exhausted by the job and in the end just slinked away into obscurity.” (Not exactly “thank you for your service, general.”)
But, of course, none of the four is naïve enough to believe he could actually influence Trump. In spite of their direct charges against POTUS, their petitions weren’t for him. No, their editorials were directed at those who hold the positions they once did—the current secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—and America’s voters. At this writing, while the first two have equivocated, one verbally (“I didn’t know where I was going,” Secretary Esper offered to NBC News when asked about Trump’s Bible stunt) and the other in the form of a letter to the troops reminding them of their duty to the Constitution, neither has had the honor or dignity to resign his post. It doesn’t look like there were any hearts and minds won on that front.
As far as the voters go, we already know, based on previous presidential lunacy, that 35 percent of them will support Trump regardless of what he says or does and the high-minded words of four officer-types isn’t going to change that one bit. However, the rest of the electorate is in play. That’s where the hope for a return to the ideals they spent their lives defending lives for these four retired officers.
General Allen ends his essay with a question and a call to action rendered in the clearest of terms: “So, what is to be done? At nearly the same moment that Americans were being beaten near the White House on behalf of their president, George Floyd’s brother Terrence Floyd visited the site of George’s murder. Overcome with grief and anger, he loudly upbraided the crowd for tarnishing his brother’s memory with violence and looting. And then he told Americans what to do: vote. ‘Educate yourselves,’ he said, ‘there’s a lot of us.’ So, while June 1 could easily be confused with a day of shame and peril if we listen to Donald Trump, if instead we listen to Terrence Floyd, it is a day of hope. So mark your calendars—this could be the beginning of the change of American democracy not to illiberalism, but to enlightenment. But it will have to come from the bottom up. For at the White House, there is no one home.”


The Mattis Effect

In 2014 , a story appeared : “ General Mattis Crosses Potomac With 100,000 Troops ; President , Senate Flee City.
” It ran in Duffel Blog—which is basically The Onion for people in the military .
Here ’ s some of the good stuff : I mention this by way of trying to explain that while Jim Mattis is a figure of some prominence to civilians , in the military he ’ s a legend .
A man whose body of lore is so large that there is even a body of intentionally fictional myths about him .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to American democracy in over 50 years this week it made a splash .
But then the news cycle moved on and sophisticates suggested that even this extraordinary denunciation was fleeting and would only have political impact on the margins .
The thinking behind this view is that voters are hardened in their support for or against Trump .
One declaration from a retired general isn ’ t going to move the needle .
This might be true for civilians .
Within the military , it might not .
Because in the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really can ’ t be overstated .
When I deployed with the Army to Syria in late 2017 , I saw that influence firsthand .
Secretary Mattis was routinely involved in detailed operations planning—it wasn ’ t unusual for officers on the ground to get emails or phone calls from the Secretary of Defense .
When Trump would attempt to abruptly reverse U.S. policy , Mattis provided a clear voice amidst the chaos .
Officers proudly displayed photos they ’ d taken with him—when he visited a base elsewhere in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that looked more like fans chasing The Beatles around in A Hard Day ’ s Night than soldiers dutifully receiving a VIP .
Junior service members—who polls show largely backed Trump—view Mattis as a legendary figure , sometimes jokingly referred to as “ Saint Mattis of Quantico.
” He is a soldier ’ s soldier : a bachelor , fully committed to warfighting .
His view on counter-insurgency became the mantra of an entire generation of Marines and soldiers : “ Be polite , be professional , but have a plan to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mattis is the rare truth-telling superior who also excels in combat .
Mattis is just as prevalent in military meme culture as he was in Pentagon policy making , with his Mattis-isms reading like modern-day Sun Tzu .
When I served , posters with his quotes filled unit hallways and soldiers ’ barracks rooms .
OAF Nation , a clothing company catering to servicemembers and veterans , sells a poster depicting Mattis unironically with a halo , as the Patron Saint of Chaos .
( It ’ s still on sale .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone cover , shirt , coffee mug , or tank top . )
The devotion to Mattis began in the Marine Corps , after he led the 1st Marine Division during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
HBO ’ s Generation Kill depicts Mattis in an iconic scene , walking through gunfire to tell subordinates to increase the pace of their attack .
This image—that of a hard-charging grunt—is how he is still viewed by most veterans and servicemembers .
Senior leaders , in turn , see Mattis as wise , weathered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all aspects of military affairs and does not kowtow to politicians .
The Obama administration forced him out for advocating for military strikes on Iran , and he resigned from the current administration over Trump ’ s abandonment of our Kurdish allies .
His two years at the helm were a boon for the Pentagon brass—the military operated with autonomy from the White House for the first time in years and had astronomical budgets to play with .
All of which gave greater force to his percussive statement .
Mattis defended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values.
” He criticized President Trump for trying to “ divide the American people , ” and compared Trump ’ s efforts to those of Nazis during World War II .
He eviscerated Joint Chiefs Chair General Mark Milley and Secretary Mark Esper—without naming them—for standing next to the president during his “ bizarre photo op ” in front of St. John ’ s Church .
Mattis offered this blunt summary : “ [ W ] e need to unite around a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
” So what will be the impact of Mattis ’ s powerful words ?
In ways not entirely visible to civilians , it could be huge .
Because of how Mattis is viewed within the military , the timing and forcefulness of his criticism of Trump are gargantuan .
Mattis had dropped hints , but lulled us all into believing that he might never speak out directly against Trump .
Among rank-and-file service members who support Trump , Mattis ’ s silence was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s actions .
So Mattis ’ s comments came as a shock .
For the past two days on social media , veterans ( and a few active duty personnel ) who are normally die-hard Trump supporters expressed confusion about which leader to follow .
Mattis ’ s more significant impact , though , will likely never be seen .
The officer corps—from company-grade officers to four-star generals—take their cues from Mattis and others like him .
In recent days , several former four-star generals and admirals—previously silent on Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this administration ’ s actions .
The DoD ’ s decision to withdraw the 82nd Airborne Division from Washington might have been driven in part by the pushback of Mattis , retired Admiral Mike Mullen , retired General Martin Dempsey , retired Marine General John Allen , and others .
Mattis ’ s words will continue to resonate with the force , leading service members at every echelon to push back against a president who once boasted that the military would do whatever he told them , even if his orders were illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trash Mattis .
But there ’ s reason to think that within the service , Mattis ’ s intervention has only burnished his legacy .
On Thursday , Duffel Blog reposted the 2014 folk tale of Mattis crossing the Potomac and saving the republic .
This time , the publication added an update : “ It ’ s happening !
”

In 2014, a story appeared: “General Mattis Crosses Potomac With 100,000 Troops; President, Senate Flee City.” It ran in Duffel Blog—which is basically The Onion for people in the military. Here’s some of the good stuff:
“I come in peace, by myself, in order to hand-deliver a Memorandum of Concern to the Commander in Chief and the Senate,” said Mattis in a press conference. “I am moving on foot at a leisurely pace, with no ill will. If these American citizens choose to take a stroll with me, then who am I to turn down their companionship?”
I mention this by way of trying to explain that while Jim Mattis is a figure of some prominence to civilians, in the military he’s a legend. A man whose body of lore is so large that there is even a body of intentionally fictional myths about him.
When Mattis declared Donald Trump the greatest threat to American democracy in over 50 years this week it made a splash. But then the news cycle moved on and sophisticates suggested that even this extraordinary denunciation was fleeting and would only have political impact on the margins. The thinking behind this view is that voters are hardened in their support for or against Trump. One declaration from a retired general isn’t going to move the needle.
This might be true for civilians. Within the military, it might not.
Because in the military world, Jim Mattis’s influence really can’t be overstated.
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…
When I deployed with the Army to Syria in late 2017, I saw that influence firsthand. Secretary Mattis was routinely involved in detailed operations planning—it wasn’t unusual for officers on the ground to get emails or phone calls from the Secretary of Defense. When Trump would attempt to abruptly reverse U.S. policy, Mattis provided a clear voice amidst the chaos. Officers proudly displayed photos they’d taken with him—when he visited a base elsewhere in the Middle East, my friends posted videos on Instagram that looked more like fans chasing The Beatles around in A Hard Day’s Night than soldiers dutifully receiving a VIP.
Junior service members—who polls show largely backed Trump—view Mattis as a legendary figure, sometimes jokingly referred to as “Saint Mattis of Quantico.” He is a soldier’s soldier: a bachelor, fully committed to warfighting. His view on counter-insurgency became the mantra of an entire generation of Marines and soldiers: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
To the enlisted, Mattis is the rare truth-telling superior who also excels in combat. Mattis is just as prevalent in military meme culture as he was in Pentagon policy making, with his Mattis-isms reading like modern-day Sun Tzu.
When I served, posters with his quotes filled unit hallways and soldiers’ barracks rooms. OAF Nation, a clothing company catering to servicemembers and veterans, sells a poster depicting Mattis unironically with a halo, as the Patron Saint of Chaos. (It’s still on sale. You can also get a St. Mattis phone cover, shirt, coffee mug, or tank top.)
The devotion to Mattis began in the Marine Corps, after he led the 1st Marine Division during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. HBO’s Generation Kill depicts Mattis in an iconic scene, walking through gunfire to tell subordinates to increase the pace of their attack. This image—that of a hard-charging grunt—is how he is still viewed by most veterans and servicemembers.
Senior leaders, in turn, see Mattis as wise, weathered, and unbiased. He is well-read in all aspects of military affairs and does not kowtow to politicians. The Obama administration forced him out for advocating for military strikes on Iran, and he resigned from the current administration over Trump’s abandonment of our Kurdish allies. His two years at the helm were a boon for the Pentagon brass—the military operated with autonomy from the White House for the first time in years and had astronomical budgets to play with.
All of which gave greater force to his percussive statement. Mattis defended the Black Lives Matter movement as “people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values.” He criticized President Trump for trying to “divide the American people,” and compared Trump’s efforts to those of Nazis during World War II. He eviscerated Joint Chiefs Chair General Mark Milley and Secretary Mark Esper—without naming them—for standing next to the president during his “bizarre photo op” in front of St. John’s Church.
Mattis offered this blunt summary: “[W]e need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.”
So what will be the impact of Mattis’s powerful words? In ways not entirely visible to civilians, it could be huge.
Because of how Mattis is viewed within the military, the timing and forcefulness of his criticism of Trump are gargantuan. Mattis had dropped hints, but lulled us all into believing that he might never speak out directly against Trump. Among rank-and-file service members who support Trump, Mattis’s silence was seen as an implicit endorsement of this administration’s actions.
So Mattis’s comments came as a shock. For the past two days on social media, veterans (and a few active duty personnel) who are normally die-hard Trump supporters expressed confusion about which leader to follow.
Mattis’s more significant impact, though, will likely never be seen. The officer corps—from company-grade officers to four-star generals—take their cues from Mattis and others like him.
In recent days, several former four-star generals and admirals—previously silent on Trump and the danger he poses—have spoken out against this administration’s actions. The DoD’s decision to withdraw the 82nd Airborne Division from Washington might have been driven in part by the pushback of Mattis, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, retired General Martin Dempsey,retired Marine General John Allen, and others.
Mattis’s words will continue to resonate with the force, leading service members at every echelon to push back against a president who once boasted that the military would do whatever he told them, even if his orders were illegal.
Trump has, predictably, tried to trash Mattis.
But there’s reason to think that within the service, Mattis’s intervention has only burnished his legacy.
On Thursday, Duffel Blog reposted the 2014 folk tale of Mattis crossing the Potomac and saving the republic. This time, the publication added an update: “It’s happening!”