thebulwark--2020-12-23--The Ghost of Conservatism Future

The Ghost of Conservatism Future

In 2016 , anti-Trump conservatives decided , at considerable cost , that their mission transcended party and ideology : defeating a candidate gravely unsuited for the presidency .
In 2020 , they opposed his re-election with the stakes even higher—saving constitutional democracy , the rule of law , and responsible governance from incipient autocracy , the abuse of presidential power , the erasure of political norms , and a concerted effort to undermine the electoral process .
By acting in the prudential conservative tradition which harks back to Edmund Burke , they helped terminate a radically destructive presidency .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strive to reconstitute the GOP as a responsible political party ?
Do they join a moderate Democratic party led by Joe Biden ?
Or do they try to help Biden succeed for the larger good of the country while ultimately hoping , someday and somehow , to provide a new home for principled conservatives ?
A word about my perspective .
Among my gifted and gutsy colleagues at The Bulwark , generally conservatives whose foundational loyalties lay with the Republican party , I ’ m a center-left Democrat who saw Trump as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline wherein the GOP conflated “ conservatism ” with a Manichean white identity politics that demolishes fact , degrades political discourse , and promotes scorched-earth partisanship .
So I ’ d be delighted to claim them as political coreligionists at this perilous national crossroads .
But my colleagues and their siblings on the center-right are not of one mind .
What unites us is the desire to help our country rebuild a collective comity .
I lack standing to suggest a specific path for my conservative friends .
But , to me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP as constituted from gutting our democracy .
The dangers before us transcend Trump .
Witness Evan McMullin ’ s stark assessment of why elected Republicans , in overwhelming numbers , acquiesced in or actively supported Trump ’ s unprecedented effort to undo a presidential election : “ That they .
.
.
clung to his mad king strategy , like sailors lashed to the mast of a sinking ship , proves that the majority of the party has , at least for the foreseeable future , forsaken democracy.
” This mutation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party establishment well before Trump : that they could harness the GOP ’ s restive white base—increasingly dominated by evangelicals and the less well educated—while serving the financial interests of their donor class .
Catherine Rampell describes the fruits of this delusion : Nor will it anytime soon .
Increasingly , the base—and therefore the party—is captive to an apocalyptic worldview rooted in fear of dispossession by the racial , cultural , and demographic “ other ” which , in turn , feeds authoritarian cravings .
As the president of the Southern Baptist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Nicholas Lemann : “ There ’ s an anxiety .
A world is being demolished before your eyes .
It ’ s an instinct that things aren ’ t going as they should .
The world is coming apart .
Somebody has to say no.
” For these angry , anxious , mostly white Republicans , Trump appeared as a human Powerball ticket .
As Mike Murphy , a longtime GOP consultant who is a strategic adviser to Republican Voters Against Trump , told Lemann : “ Trump was a perfect grievance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters wanted to blow up the system… He was very George Wallace .
And then there was the strongman thing : Juan Perón in an orange fright wig.
” Trump sealed the establishment ’ s devil ’ s pact : He stoked the resentments of the GOP ’ s primary electorate while giving the party ’ s donor class the tax cuts they crave and judges who , shrouded in cultural conservatism , protect their economic interests .
The contradictions inherent in this pact require the perpetuation of a socially corrosive alternate reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or defines the party ’ s officeholders .
In examining why so many voters exhibit “ such cognitive decline when it came to politics ” George Packer cites the dire history of twentieth-century Europe : That psychic need for absolutism aptly describes the animating spirit of Trump ’ s GOP .
Concludes Packer : “ Though the U.S. is still a democratic republic , not a totalitarian regime , and Trump was an all-American demagogue , not a fascist dictator , his followers abandoned common sense and found their guide to the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change that.
” This sensibility is rooted in the GOP ’ s reliance on fictional tropes years before Trump ’ s rise—at first in the service of political ideology : that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves ; that climate change is a liberal fantasy ; that gun-control laws don ’ t limit gun violence .
In time , this fed a nihilistic quasi-libertarianism nurtured by right-wing media—seen in everything from the mindless political arson of the Tea Party to the deadly aversion against wearing masks to stifle COVID-19—which erodes our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance .
This animus differs from opposition to authoritarianism per se—it is directed at the supposed elites who have unleashed government on those who already feel marginalized .
Hence the findings of social scientists who link the instinct for autocracy among the Republican base to racial and cultural resentments which , as they see it , require the subordination of their societal enemies .
Beneath the hatred of “ political correctness ” lurks the desire to control its perceived proponents .
Add the desire for simple explanations of complex problems to the belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and conspiracy theories follow .
In all too many cases Trump did not originate the false narratives which poison the current Republican party .
He simply exploited the pre-existing paranoia of its base .
That ’ s why , before seeking the presidency , he could so easily spread the conspiratorial nonsense of birtherism—a classic expression of racial anxieties and resentments—throughout the party .
The Republican electorate elevated Trump because such lies had already become the lingua franca of a gated community of the mind that will outlive him .
The common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump misses this central point—the party houses an alienated worldview which he simply fortified and exploited .
Long before Trump , the base was captured by Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh—and so , inevitably , was the party .
While Trump fed this phenomenon , it does not require him .
Observes Packer : “ No number from Trump ’ s years in power will be more lastingly destructive than his 25,000 false or misleading statements .
Super-spread by social media and cable news , they contaminated the minds of tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies will linger for years , poisoning the atmosphere like radioactive dust.
” Little wonder that the GOP of 2020 had no platform—the glue which binds the base is no longer principles or ideas , but its angry addiction to false narratives .
Within this hermetic world the psychotic assertion of QAnon that Democrats molest and devour children to satiate Satan is taken , by many , as reality .
This collective insanity has profound implications for public policy and social coherence .
The widespread disbelief among the base in the deadliness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; enabled Trump ’ s lethal neglect ; and now feeds the aversion to vaccination , thereby likely adding to the toll of needless death .
Similarly , the refusal to accept the reality of Russian attacks on our election in 2016 surely encouraged the massive Russian cyberattack that has come to light over the last few days .
Not so many years ago , the Republican party was reflexively hawkish on Russia ; today , the party is nearly silent , taking its cue from Trump , who , when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adage “ If you don ’ t have something nice to say about someone , then don ’ t say anything at all.
” The appalling apotheosis of the GOP ’ s embrace of delusion is the willingness—even eagerness—of the great majority of Republican voters to accept Trump ’ s most destructive falsehood : that Joe Biden stole the election through massive voter fraud for which no cognizable evidence exists .
In the echo chamber of the Republican party , the most grotesque lies are self-validating : voting machines were rigged in Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dead voted en masse ; mail-in balloting created millions of phony votes ; for Trump to lose was statistically impossible .
As The Bulwark ’ s Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter have detailed , these otherworldly claims were metastasized by media sociopaths profiteering in the GOP ’ s hysteria market .
The primetime hosts of Fox News , until now the most prominent purveyors of rank disinformation , now compete with prevaricators on Newsmax and OAN who make Sean Hannity look like Walter Cronkite .
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy exults over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s chaotic reign : “ The news cycle is red-hot , and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute.
” Peddling misinformation that further inflames a ready audience of Republicans is , it seems clear , the ideal business model for those who savor shriveling souls and shrinking minds .
In the post-truth netherworld , their profit swells , and their influence grows apace .
As social psychologist Peter Ditto told Thomas B. Edsall , “ in that environment almost any lie can be believed , almost any transgression excused , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such unmediated antagonism breeds not only authoritarianism but violence .
One particularly toxic element is racism , expressed most recently in Trump ’ s blatant attempt to disenfranchise black voters in states which Biden won—followed by the vandalization of black churches in Washington , D.C. during a pro-Trump rally earlier this month .
But this ugly spirit transcends race .
Witness the right-wing militia that plotted to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer after Trump denounced her lockdown orders—let alone the dangerous flashpoints stemming from Trump ’ s loss : armed protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson ; and the threats against secretaries of state and otherwise anonymous election workers in Georgia , Arizona , and Pennsylvania .
No longer are the fears of public officials confined to electoral defeat .
As the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania Senate told the New York Times , had she not signed a letter urging the state ’ s congressional delegation to toss out its electoral votes for Biden , “ I ’ d get my house bombed tonight.
” This menace highlights a broader truth—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Write political scientists Steven Livingston and W. Lance Bennett : Long before Trump took over the party , the GOP committed itself to preserving the dominance of its white electorate by targeting people of color—passing photo ID laws which have the documented effect of reducing minority turnout ; purging voting rolls ; and closing polling places in minority areas .
As Geoffrey Kabaservice observes , once the GOP “ stopped believing it was the majority party .
.
.
then anything would be permitted , including antidemocratic means.
” Their bogus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was that such measures prevented massive voter fraud .
Notes David Litt in the Guardian : “ Trump simply absorbed his party establishment ’ s prevailing view—that it is acceptable to win elections through whatever means possible .
.
.
and took that approach to its logical conclusion.
” The party ’ s longstanding claims of voter fraud may have begun as a cynical contrivance .
But by now the loathing for democracy among the base is not just tactical , but visceral .
Combine the instinct for authoritarianism with conspiratorial thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threaten all you hold dear , and an alternative reality marinating in hatred and fear , and democracy itself becomes the enemy .
This helps explain the acquiescence of party officials to Trump ’ s depredations : They fear the base ; the base fears elections ; and both fear the larger electorate .
Jamelle Bouie describes the GOP ’ s bottom line : Already , Republican state and federal legislators are working to rig future elections , proposing harsher ID requirements and strict limits on voting by mail .
In furtherance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hearing last week to publicize false claims of voter fraud .
The next election may be closer , GOP election officials less willing to risk political opprobrium and personal danger .
Warns Dan Pfeiffer , “ In elections going forward , not trying to steal the election will be seen as RINO behavior.
” Already , the GOP is abetted by structural advantages that circumscribe genuine democracy .
In 2021 Republicans will initiate more partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts to regain control of the House , having retained majorities in crucial state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their efforts to control presidential elections are , of course , fortified by the Electoral College .
Trump ’ s attempts to manipulate its arcane machinery should extinguish the notion that this 233-year-old compromise with slave states embodies timeless conservative wisdom .
Instead , it has become a Republican tool for undermining representative democracy .
Procedures put in place as last resorts for rare outcomes—such as a state legislature appointing its own slate of electors if that state ’ s normal election “ fails , ” or situations in which there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives picks the president by vote of each congressional delegation—have been misappropriated by Republicans desperate to find some mechanism , no matter how anti-democratic , to subvert the election .
Moreover , demographic sorting means that the Electoral College is increasingly likely to contradict the popular vote , as happened in two of the last six presidential elections .
Finally , its results turn on a handful of closely contested states , thereby incentivizing voter suppression and electoral chicanery .
As Jesse Wegman notes , the fact that every other election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote confirms its conservative virtues—by treating voters as equals , it provides legitimacy and , therefore , stability .
No matter : in the guise of conservatism the GOP will fight to preserve it as an instrument of electoral subversion , a bulwark against majority rule—and a perpetual gun to the head of democracy .
All this has less to do with Trump than the Republican base and its minoritarian-authoritarian political home .
Observes Kabaservice , the GOP “ has become a perpetual grievance machine unwilling ( and unable ) to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
.
.
.
Any Republicans who hope to succeed [ Trump ] as president will have to parrot his claims that he won in a landslide , that American democracy is corrupt and that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.
” A roll call of aspirants—from the scary Tom Cotton to the slicker Josh Hawley to the careful Nikki Haley—discloses no one with the following or the gifts , let alone the integrity and courage , to undertake the protean ordeal of rehabilitating the Republican party .
Equally probable , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not Trump himself , could well be his ignorant and demagogic oldest son .
With the help of voter suppression and the Electoral College , he just might win .
So what must principled conservatives do ?
In my view their first imperative is to help reinvigorate our democracy , and our capacity for effective governance , by making common cause with other Americans of good will in opposition to the GOP .
The immediate challenge facing conservatives is less about ideology than restoration : reinfusing society with the stability , optimism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and institutions indispensable to a sound polity .
One essential element is protecting the franchise : ensuring voting rights ; combating voter suppression ; expanding vote by mail ; and encouraging broader participation .
Another possibility is curbing gerrymandering through redistricting by nonpartisan commissions .
Some problems with the Electoral College could be resolved by amending the Electoral Count Act of 1887 .
In 2020 this ill-drafted law created the prospect of partisan state legislatures overriding the results of “ failed ” elections based on false charges of voter fraud ; the specter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s designated electors still looms over the proceedings scheduled for January 6 .
But the deeper problem is that the Electoral College engenders electoral disputes , encourages voter suppression and manipulation , frequently abridges the popular vote , and confines meaningful participation in presidential elections to the citizens of a handful of states .
Thus a number of states—accounting for more than a third of the total Electoral College votes—have entered a compact agreeing to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote nationwide .
This extraconstitutional contrivance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional amendment , provokes justifiable unease .
But one must ask whether completing it is nonetheless preferable—indeed , more conservative—than maintaining a dysfunctional and destabilizing anachronism which was , itself , a contrivance—thereby promoting minority rule , electoral subversion , and , inevitably , the grave constitutional crisis augured by the maneuvers of Trump and his party .
The other necessity is to support the Biden administration in addressing our urgent needs .
This , too , is inherently conservative : Compared to renewing confidence in government at this crossroads between renewal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly , conservatives need not become Democrats .
But for now Democrats have defined themselves as a center-left party which presents the vehicle for preserving a functioning democracy .
Again , Evan McMullin : Unmoored from partisanship and the related constraints of ideology , principled conservatives can strengthen the political center , promote compromise over polarization , and consider anew the problems which atomize America : income inequality , discriminatory law enforcement , substandard education , unaffordable college , and residential segregation .
The majority of Americans—and Democrats—want solutions , not slogans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its citizens believe—and which , by helping the least of them achieve their full potential , enriches the whole .
That shared enterprise requires the energy and commitment of true conservatives .

In 2016, anti-Trump conservatives decided, at considerable cost, that their mission transcended party and ideology: defeating a candidate gravely unsuited for the presidency. In 2020, they opposed his re-election with the stakes even higher—saving constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and responsible governance from incipient autocracy, the abuse of presidential power, the erasure of political norms, and a concerted effort to undermine the electoral process.
By acting in the prudential conservative tradition which harks back to Edmund Burke, they helped terminate a radically destructive presidency. But what now?
Do the Never Trumpers strive to reconstitute the GOP as a responsible political party? Do they join a moderate Democratic party led by Joe Biden? Or do they try to help Biden succeed for the larger good of the country while ultimately hoping, someday and somehow, to provide a new home for principled conservatives?
A word about my perspective. Among my gifted and gutsy colleagues at The Bulwark, generally conservatives whose foundational loyalties lay with the Republican party, I’m a center-left Democrat who saw Trump as the continuation—not the cause—of a moral and intellectual decline wherein the GOP conflated “conservatism” with a Manichean white identity politics that demolishes fact, degrades political discourse, and promotes scorched-earth partisanship. So I’d be delighted to claim them as political coreligionists at this perilous national crossroads.
But my colleagues and their siblings on the center-right are not of one mind. What unites us is the desire to help our country rebuild a collective comity.
I lack standing to suggest a specific path for my conservative friends. But, to me, one indispensable predicate comes first: stopping the GOP as constituted from gutting our democracy.
The dangers before us transcend Trump. Witness Evan McMullin’s stark assessment of why elected Republicans, in overwhelming numbers, acquiesced in or actively supported Trump’s unprecedented effort to undo a presidential election: “That they. . . clung to his mad king strategy, like sailors lashed to the mast of a sinking ship, proves that the majority of the party has, at least for the foreseeable future, forsaken democracy.”
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…
This mutation reflects a fatal miscalculation made by the party establishment well before Trump: that they could harness the GOP’s restive white base—increasingly dominated by evangelicals and the less well educated—while serving the financial interests of their donor class. Catherine Rampell describes the fruits of this delusion:
Over the years, Republican politicians seemed many times to be on the cusp of a reckoning—a realization that a lunatic fringe had seized control of the party’s more pragmatic center and that conspiracy-theorizing, race-baiting, science-denigrating demagogues had transformed the GOP base into ungovernable paranoiacs. The situation seemed untenable; the fever had to break. . . . Yet the party’s radicalization continued, and the reckoning never came.
Nor will it anytime soon. Increasingly, the base—and therefore the party—is captive to an apocalyptic worldview rooted in fear of dispossession by the racial, cultural, and demographic “other” which, in turn, feeds authoritarian cravings. As the president of the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, Albert Mohler, explained to Nicholas Lemann: “There’s an anxiety. A world is being demolished before your eyes. It’s an instinct that things aren’t going as they should. The world is coming apart. Somebody has to say no.”
For these angry, anxious, mostly white Republicans, Trump appeared as a human Powerball ticket. As Mike Murphy, a longtime GOP consultant who is a strategic adviser to Republican Voters Against Trump, told Lemann: “Trump was a perfect grievance candidate, at a time when Republican voters wanted to blow up the system… He was very George Wallace. And then there was the strongman thing: Juan Perón in an orange fright wig.”
Trump sealed the establishment’s devil’s pact: He stoked the resentments of the GOP’s primary electorate while giving the party’s donor class the tax cuts they crave and judges who, shrouded in cultural conservatism, protect their economic interests. The contradictions inherent in this pact require the perpetuation of a socially corrosive alternate reality that narcotizes the base—and thereby increasingly entraps or defines the party’s officeholders.
In examining why so many voters exhibit “such cognitive decline when it came to politics” George Packer cites the dire history of twentieth-century Europe:
Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, describes the susceptibility to propaganda of the atomized modern masses, “obsessed by a desire to escape from reality because in their essential homelessness they can no longer bear its accidental, incomprehensible aspects.” They seek refuge in “a man-made pattern of relative consistency” that bears little relation to reality.
That psychic need for absolutism aptly describes the animating spirit of Trump’s GOP. Concludes Packer: “Though the U.S. is still a democratic republic, not a totalitarian regime, and Trump was an all-American demagogue, not a fascist dictator, his followers abandoned common sense and found their guide to the world in him. Defeat won’t change that.”
This sensibility is rooted in the GOP’s reliance on fictional tropes years before Trump’s rise—at first in the service of political ideology: that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves; that climate change is a liberal fantasy; that gun-control laws don’t limit gun violence. In time, this fed a nihilistic quasi-libertarianism nurtured by right-wing media—seen in everything from the mindless political arson of the Tea Party to the deadly aversion against wearing masks to stifle COVID-19—which erodes our capacity to resolve common challenges through prudent governance.
This animus differs from opposition to authoritarianism per se—it is directed at the supposed elites who have unleashed government on those who already feel marginalized. Hence the findings of social scientists who link the instinct for autocracy among the Republican base to racial and cultural resentments which, as they see it, require the subordination of their societal enemies.
Beneath the hatred of “political correctness” lurks the desire to control its perceived proponents. Add the desire for simple explanations of complex problems to the belief that you are opposed by evil forces, and conspiracy theories follow.
In all too many cases Trump did not originate the false narratives which poison the current Republican party. He simply exploited the pre-existing paranoia of its base.
That’s why, before seeking the presidency, he could so easily spread the conspiratorial nonsense of birtherism—a classic expression of racial anxieties and resentments—throughout the party. The Republican electorate elevated Trump because such lies had already become the lingua franca of a gated community of the mind that will outlive him.
The common assertion that the GOP became the cult of Trump misses this central point—the party houses an alienated worldview which he simply fortified and exploited. Long before Trump, the base was captured by Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh—and so, inevitably, was the party.
While Trump fed this phenomenon, it does not require him. Observes Packer: “No number from Trump’s years in power will be more lastingly destructive than his 25,000 false or misleading statements. Super-spread by social media and cable news, they contaminated the minds of tens of millions of people. Trump’s lies will linger for years, poisoning the atmosphere like radioactive dust.”
Little wonder that the GOP of 2020 had no platform—the glue which binds the base is no longer principles or ideas, but its angry addiction to false narratives. Within this hermetic world the psychotic assertion of QAnon that Democrats molest and devour children to satiate Satan is taken, by many, as reality.
This collective insanity has profound implications for public policy and social coherence. The widespread disbelief among the base in the deadliness of COVID-19 accelerated the disease’s spread; enabled Trump’s lethal neglect; and now feeds the aversion to vaccination, thereby likely adding to the toll of needless death.
Similarly, the refusal to accept the reality of Russian attacks on our election in 2016 surely encouraged the massive Russian cyberattack that has come to light over the last few days. Not so many years ago, the Republican party was reflexively hawkish on Russia; today, the party is nearly silent, taking its cue from Trump, who, when it comes to Vladimir Putin, follows the old adage “If you don’t have something nice to say about someone, then don’t say anything at all.”
The appalling apotheosis of the GOP’s embrace of delusion is the willingness—even eagerness—of the great majority of Republican voters to accept Trump’s most destructive falsehood: that Joe Biden stole the election through massive voter fraud for which no cognizable evidence exists. In the echo chamber of the Republican party, the most grotesque lies are self-validating: voting machines were rigged in Venezuela; Stacey Abrams harvested bogus ballots; the dead voted en masse; mail-in balloting created millions of phony votes; for Trump to lose was statistically impossible.
As The Bulwark’s Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter have detailed, these otherworldly claims were metastasized by media sociopaths profiteering in the GOP’s hysteria market. The primetime hosts of Fox News, until now the most prominent purveyors of rank disinformation, now compete with prevaricators on Newsmax and OAN who make Sean Hannity look like Walter Cronkite. Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy exults over the opportunities for profit arising from Trump’s chaotic reign: “The news cycle is red-hot, and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute.”
Peddling misinformation that further inflames a ready audience of Republicans is, it seems clear, the ideal business model for those who savor shriveling souls and shrinking minds. In the post-truth netherworld, their profit swells, and their influence grows apace. As social psychologist Peter Ditto told Thomas B. Edsall, “in that environment almost any lie can be believed, almost any transgression excused, as long as it helps your side.”
Such unmediated antagonism breeds not only authoritarianism but violence. One particularly toxic element is racism, expressed most recently in Trump’s blatant attempt to disenfranchise black voters in states which Biden won—followed by the vandalization of black churches in Washington, D.C. during a pro-Trump rally earlier this month.
But this ugly spirit transcends race. Witness the right-wing militia that plotted to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer after Trump denounced her lockdown orders—let alone the dangerous flashpoints stemming from Trump’s loss: armed protesters who surrounded the home of the Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson; and the threats against secretaries of state and otherwise anonymous election workers in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
No longer are the fears of public officials confined to electoral defeat. As the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania Senate told the New York Times, had she not signed a letter urging the state’s congressional delegation to toss out its electoral votes for Biden, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”
This menace highlights a broader truth—the Republican party has become inimical to democracy itself. Write political scientists Steven Livingston and W. Lance Bennett:
The descent of the GOP into illiberalism did not begin with Trump’s ride down an escalator five years ago. It started with the party’s Faustian bargain with racism, along with its embrace of billionaire backers who fund elections, think tanks, and media networks producing propaganda for extremists. All of this serves as a distraction from decades-long strategies to legalize voter suppression.
Long before Trump took over the party, the GOP committed itself to preserving the dominance of its white electorate by targeting people of color—passing photo ID laws which have the documented effect of reducing minority turnout; purging voting rolls; and closing polling places in minority areas. As Geoffrey Kabaservice observes, once the GOP “stopped believing it was the majority party . . . then anything would be permitted, including antidemocratic means.”
Their bogus pretext, turbocharged by Trump in 2020, was that such measures prevented massive voter fraud. Notes David Litt in the Guardian: “Trump simply absorbed his party establishment’s prevailing view—that it is acceptable to win elections through whatever means possible . . . and took that approach to its logical conclusion.”
The party’s longstanding claims of voter fraud may have begun as a cynical contrivance. But by now the loathing for democracy among the base is not just tactical, but visceral. Combine the instinct for authoritarianism with conspiratorial thinking, the belief that your political opponents threaten all you hold dear, and an alternative reality marinating in hatred and fear, and democracy itself becomes the enemy.
This helps explain the acquiescence of party officials to Trump’s depredations: They fear the base; the base fears elections; and both fear the larger electorate. Jamelle Bouie describes the GOP’s bottom line:
We have learned that the Republican Party . . . views defeat on its face as illegitimate, a product of fraud concocted by opponents who don’t deserve to hold power. That it is fully the party of minority rule, committed to the idea that a vote doesn’t count if it isn’t for its candidates, and that if democracy won’t serve its partisan and ideological interests, then so much for democracy.
Already, Republican state and federal legislators are working to rig future elections, proposing harsher ID requirements and strict limits on voting by mail. In furtherance of these aims, Senator Ron Johnson held a hearing last week to publicize false claims of voter fraud. The next election may be closer, GOP election officials less willing to risk political opprobrium and personal danger. Warns Dan Pfeiffer, “In elections going forward, not trying to steal the election will be seen as RINO behavior.”
Already, the GOP is abetted by structural advantages that circumscribe genuine democracy. In 2021 Republicans will initiate more partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts to regain control of the House, having retained majorities in crucial state legislatures which are themselves gerrymandered. And their efforts to control presidential elections are, of course, fortified by the Electoral College.
Trump’s attempts to manipulate its arcane machinery should extinguish the notion that this 233-year-old compromise with slave states embodies timeless conservative wisdom. Instead, it has become a Republican tool for undermining representative democracy. Procedures put in place as last resorts for rare outcomes—such as a state legislature appointing its own slate of electors if that state’s normal election “fails,” or situations in which there is no clear Electoral College winner and therefore the House of Representatives picks the president by vote of each congressional delegation—have been misappropriated by Republicans desperate to find some mechanism, no matter how anti-democratic, to subvert the election.
Moreover, demographic sorting means that the Electoral College is increasingly likely to contradict the popular vote, as happened in two of the last six presidential elections. Finally, its results turn on a handful of closely contested states, thereby incentivizing voter suppression and electoral chicanery.
As Jesse Wegman notes, the fact that every other election in the United States is determined by popular vote confirms its conservative virtues—by treating voters as equals, it provides legitimacy and, therefore, stability. No matter: in the guise of conservatism the GOP will fight to preserve it as an instrument of electoral subversion, a bulwark against majority rule—and a perpetual gun to the head of democracy.
All this has less to do with Trump than the Republican base and its minoritarian-authoritarian political home. Observes Kabaservice, the GOP “has become a perpetual grievance machine unwilling (and unable) to address those grievances through governance or the legislative process. . . . Any Republicans who hope to succeed [Trump] as president will have to parrot his claims that he won in a landslide, that American democracy is corrupt and that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.”
A roll call of aspirants—from the scary Tom Cotton to the slicker Josh Hawley to the careful Nikki Haley—discloses no one with the following or the gifts, let alone the integrity and courage, to undertake the protean ordeal of rehabilitating the Republican party. Equally probable, the base’s avatar in 2024, if not Trump himself, could well be his ignorant and demagogic oldest son. With the help of voter suppression and the Electoral College, he just might win.
So what must principled conservatives do?
In my view their first imperative is to help reinvigorate our democracy, and our capacity for effective governance, by making common cause with other Americans of good will in opposition to the GOP. The immediate challenge facing conservatives is less about ideology than restoration: reinfusing society with the stability, optimism, and renewed belief in our traditions and institutions indispensable to a sound polity.
One essential element is protecting the franchise: ensuring voting rights; combating voter suppression; expanding vote by mail; and encouraging broader participation. Another possibility is curbing gerrymandering through redistricting by nonpartisan commissions.
Some problems with the Electoral College could be resolved by amending the Electoral Count Act of 1887. In 2020 this ill-drafted law created the prospect of partisan state legislatures overriding the results of “failed” elections based on false charges of voter fraud; the specter of partisan congressional challenges to a state’s designated electors still looms over the proceedings scheduled for January 6.
But the deeper problem is that the Electoral College engenders electoral disputes, encourages voter suppression and manipulation, frequently abridges the popular vote, and confines meaningful participation in presidential elections to the citizens of a handful of states. Thus a number of states—accounting for more than a third of the total Electoral College votes—have entered a compact agreeing to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote nationwide.
This extraconstitutional contrivance, intended to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment, provokes justifiable unease. But one must ask whether completing it is nonetheless preferable—indeed, more conservative—than maintaining a dysfunctional and destabilizing anachronism which was, itself, a contrivance—thereby promoting minority rule, electoral subversion, and, inevitably, the grave constitutional crisis augured by the maneuvers of Trump and his party.
The other necessity is to support the Biden administration in addressing our urgent needs. This, too, is inherently conservative: Compared to renewing confidence in government at this crossroads between renewal and decline, ideological disputes are secondary.
Clearly, conservatives need not become Democrats. But for now Democrats have defined themselves as a center-left party which presents the vehicle for preserving a functioning democracy. Again, Evan McMullin:
If the coalition that defeated Mr. Trump and elected President-elect Joe Biden, of which we [Never Trump conservatives] are a part, fails now to lead the nation past the coronavirus pandemic, widespread job losses and economic instability, social division and injustice, inaccessible health care, fiscal shortfalls and disinformation, we will invite a resurgence of Trumpism and even more formidable illiberalism in the future.
Unmoored from partisanship and the related constraints of ideology, principled conservatives can strengthen the political center, promote compromise over polarization, and consider anew the problems which atomize America: income inequality, discriminatory law enforcement, substandard education, unaffordable college, and residential segregation. The majority of Americans—and Democrats—want solutions, not slogans.
The healthiest society is that in which its citizens believe—and which, by helping the least of them achieve their full potential, enriches the whole. That shared enterprise requires the energy and commitment of true conservatives.


thebulwark--2020-12-23--Even Trump’s Pardons Are Selfish

Even Trump’s Pardons Are Selfish

The list of Trump pardons and clemencies so far looks a lot like a supermarket tabloid—in other words , a lot like Trump ’ s life itself .
There ’ s Rod Blagojevich with his saucy smile , and there ’ s smug Joe Arpaio .
Every president ’ s pardon list contains some self-serving or controversial picks—think of Clinton ’ s pardon for Marc Rich , or Barack Obama ’ s commutation of Chelsea Manning ’ s sentence to time served .
But every other president in American history has chosen some worthy recipients of executive clemency as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for pardons .
That ’ s because every other American president has been a more or less normal human being .
And normal human beings have some concept of justice .
Trump is incapable of comprehending abstract virtues like justice .
A glance at the list of his pardons so far just screams ME , ME , ME .
There ’ s Arpaio , whose rabid followers Trump aimed to please , and billionaire Conrad Black , convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice , who is a voluble Trump supporter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also pass the shameless toady test .
In at least one case , Trump ’ s narcissistic pardon system may have crossed the line from merely reprehensible to illegal , prompting a Justice Department investigation .
But wait , what about Jon Ponder , the thrice-convicted bank robber who served his time and then founded the Hope for Prisoners charity upon his release ?
Isn ’ t he just the sort of sympathetic figure presidents should notice ?
Yes .
Except that 1 ) his pardon was scripted to be a big feature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ) he was already free .
What about Alice Marie Johnson , who received a life sentence for a first-time drug offense ( and a handful of others whose cases she highlighted ) ?
Yes , that was straight up justice .
And it would deserve approbation except for one thing that slides it into the tabloid category : Trump issued the pardons after high-profile lobbying by Kim Kardashian West .
Most people like to think of themselves as on the side of the angels .
Trump has no inkling of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re either for him and therefore good , noble , and much-sinned- against , or against him and therefore disgraceful .
And the same person can be both , depending upon what they ’ ve done for Trump lately .
In 2017 , for example , Trump labelled George Papadopoulos , a campaign aide who pleaded guilty to lying about his Russian contacts to the FBI , a “ low-level volunteer ” and a “ liar.
” On release from prison , Papadopoulos recanted ( unofficially , but publicly ) his guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s conspiracy theories .
Yesterday he got a pardon , along with Alex van der Zwaan , another figure who pleaded guilty to making false statements in connection with the Russia probe .
“ Today ’ s pardon helps correct the wrong that Mueller ’ s team inflicted on so many people , ” explained a White House statement .
We can expect more of this .
Paul Manafort can plan to resume his life of ostrich jackets and lavish apartments .
Trump also reached out to pardon three flagrantly corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign funds for mistresses , committed securities fraud , and other things of that sort .
Were Chris Collins , Duncan Hunter , and Steve Stockman virtuous men maltreated by the system ?
No , but they were early backers of Donald J. Trump .
The only time Trump expands his self-regard to others is , revealingly , when it comes to police and war criminals—a pattern he continued this week .
He sees them not as distortions of honor but as “ strong ” and virtuous .
Inevitably , he complains that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He misses the irony .
We will witness a tawdry spectacle as Trump continues to pardon all the wrong people in the coming days .
There will be worthy recipients tucked into the list of lackeys Trump will reward .
But they will be chosen as favors to Trump loyalistsin Congress or elsewhere .
The great question that remains is the possible pardon of one man , the ultimate innocent victim of corrupt forces and “ human scum ; ” a man whose talents are constantly underrated and whose worth is beyond measure—himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Section 2 says the president “ shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States , except in cases of impeachment.
” The courts have interpreted the president ’ s pardon power broadly , but no president has ever attempted to pardon himself .
The best possible outcome of a Trump self-pardon would be a legal test , ending with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that the word “ grant ” in the Constitution implies a two-way transaction and that no one , including the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , reached with six conservative justices including three Trump appointees , would underline a principle that completely eludes Trump—that most Americans uphold principles beyond self-worship .

The list of Trump pardons and clemencies so far looks a lot like a supermarket tabloid—in other words, a lot like Trump’s life itself. There’s Rod Blagojevich with his saucy smile, and there’s smug Joe Arpaio. Every president’s pardon list contains some self-serving or controversial picks—think of Clinton’s pardon for Marc Rich, or Barack Obama’s commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence to time served.
But every other president in American history has chosen some worthy recipients of executive clemency as well, some reformed souls whose cases sang out for pardons. That’s because every other American president has been a more or less normal human being. And normal human beings have some concept of justice.
Trump is incapable of comprehending abstract virtues like justice. A glance at the list of his pardons so far just screams ME, ME, ME. There’s Arpaio, whose rabid followers Trump aimed to please, and billionaire Conrad Black, convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice, who is a voluble Trump supporter. Dinesh D’Souza and Bernard Kerik also pass the shameless toady test. In at least one case, Trump’s narcissistic pardon system may have crossed the line from merely reprehensible to illegal, prompting a Justice Department investigation.
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 wait, what about Jon Ponder, the thrice-convicted bank robber who served his time and then founded the Hope for Prisoners charity upon his release? Isn’t he just the sort of sympathetic figure presidents should notice? Yes. Except that 1) his pardon was scripted to be a big feature at the Republican National Convention; and 2) he was already free.
What about Alice Marie Johnson, who received a life sentence for a first-time drug offense (and a handful of others whose cases she highlighted)? Yes, that was straight up justice. And it would deserve approbation except for one thing that slides it into the tabloid category: Trump issued the pardons after high-profile lobbying by Kim Kardashian West.
Most people like to think of themselves as on the side of the angels. Trump has no inkling of what that is. For him, you’re either for him and therefore good, noble, and much-sinned- against, or against him and therefore disgraceful.
And the same person can be both, depending upon what they’ve done for Trump lately. In 2017, for example, Trump labelled George Papadopoulos, a campaign aide who pleaded guilty to lying about his Russian contacts to the FBI, a “low-level volunteer” and a “liar.” On release from prison, Papadopoulos recanted (unofficially, but publicly) his guilty plea, and became an apostle for Trump’s conspiracy theories. Yesterday he got a pardon, along with Alex van der Zwaan, another figure who pleaded guilty to making false statements in connection with the Russia probe. “Today’s pardon helps correct the wrong that Mueller’s team inflicted on so many people,” explained a White House statement. We can expect more of this. Paul Manafort can plan to resume his life of ostrich jackets and lavish apartments.
Trump also reached out to pardon three flagrantly corrupt former Republican members of Congress who misused campaign funds for mistresses, committed securities fraud, and other things of that sort. Were Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, and Steve Stockman virtuous men maltreated by the system? No, but they were early backers of Donald J. Trump.
The only time Trump expands his self-regard to others is, revealingly, when it comes to police and war criminals—a pattern he continued this week. He sees them not as distortions of honor but as “strong” and virtuous. Inevitably, he complains that they are “very badly treated.” He misses the irony.
We will witness a tawdry spectacle as Trump continues to pardon all the wrong people in the coming days. There will be worthy recipients tucked into the list of lackeys Trump will reward. But they will be chosen as favors to Trump loyalistsin Congress or elsewhere.
The great question that remains is the possible pardon of one man, the ultimate innocent victim of corrupt forces and “human scum;” a man whose talents are constantly underrated and whose worth is beyond measure—himself. The Constitution, in Article II, Section 2 says the president “shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” The courts have interpreted the president’s pardon power broadly, but no president has ever attempted to pardon himself.
The best possible outcome of a Trump self-pardon would be a legal test, ending with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that the word “grant” in the Constitution implies a two-way transaction and that no one, including the president, is above the law. Such a decision, reached with six conservative justices including three Trump appointees, would underline a principle that completely eludes Trump—that most Americans uphold principles beyond self-worship.


thebulwark--2020-12-23--The Broad Coalition Trying to Take Down Viktor Orbán

From Russia to Turkey to Hungary , the power of authoritarians reflects the weakness and dysfunction of their opponents .
While often a result of government repression , the inability of the opposition to get its act together is sometimes self-inflicted and driven by the narcissism of small differences , political disagreements that may have mattered in earlier times but are irrelevant to the defeat of the local strongman .
For over a decade , the Hungarian opposition was fragmented , disorganized , and generally hapless .
In the meantime , Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’ s political movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packed the courts , repeatedly defied EU institutions , spouted conspiracy theories featuring George Soros , and cozied up to Russia—and rewrote the electoral rules .
Today , Fidesz ’ s control of the government administration , public broadcasting , print media , and even much of the economy is near-complete .
As the recent compromise on the EU ’ s budget shows , Europe has largely resigned itself to the situation .
The tide might be turning , however .
In the 2022 parliamentary election , Hungary ’ s six leading opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common manifesto , to draw a single electoral list—running one joint candidate to oppose Fidesz in each district , and to present a shared candidate for prime minister .
The move responds to the latest changes to Hungary ’ s highly complex electoral law , which distinguishes between national party lists and candidates fielded in specific constituencies .
According to the most recent reform , rushed through parliament during the current state of emergency , national lists will be allowed only for parties that run candidates everywhere in the country .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it also means a mutual cannibalization of opposition candidates .
Orbán is betting that the broad-based alliance , which includes the formerly far-right Jobbik , the Socialists , as well as the Greens and the liberal , pro-Western Momentum Movement , will fail .
He may be right—not so long ago , Jobbik was a de facto neo-Nazi movement that once called for compiling lists of publicly active Jews .
Since then , it has pivoted strongly to the center , because Orbán ’ s governing Fidesz leaves no room to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration and national identity .
The Socialists are ( reformed and democratized ) heirs to Hungary ’ s pre-1989 Workers Party , still drawing , in part , on communist-era cadres .
Meanwhile , Momentum has built its following among highly educated , liberal , young , and urban voters .
Yet there is a non-trivial chance that the Hungarian prime minister is overplaying his cards .
Opinion polls suggest that a single opposition bloc would stand a decent chance of winning—and in fact turning Orbán ’ s highly majoritarian reforms against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country may see a strong economic recovery after the pandemic .
After having mobilized his supporters against globalist financiers , asylum seekers , and gays , Orbán will doubtless seek to set them against some other external threat .
He will need to identify enemies , scapegoats , and hate figures to counterbalance rising dissatisfaction with the status quo , marked by a brain drain and ( pre-pandemic ) fragile economic growth .
Past experiences of opposition cooperation should make Fidesz nervous too .
Shortly before the 2018 parliamentary election , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single candidate in a mayoral race in Fidesz ’ s stronghold of Hódmezővásárhely .
The opposition candidate comfortably defeated Fidesz in a city that had not had a non-Fidesz mayor since the fall of communism .
Last year , in a mayoral election in Budapest , much of the opposition united behind Gergely Karácsony .
While Jobbik did not explicitly endorse him , it did not run its own candidate either , allowing Karácsony to win handily .
Of course , the obstacles to cooperation and coordination for the new opposition bloc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local ones .
At the same time , as Samuel Johnson famously argued , the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight concentrates one ’ s mind .
Should Orbán win a fourth term in a country lacking basic checks and balances , the prospect of a democratic Hungary would be gone for good .
The EU ’ s current tolerance of Orbán ’ s regime notwithstanding , the 2022 election will be about the country ’ s fundamental character—can Hungary still be a European democracy , or is the brief post-communist period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The answer to that question has ramifications beyond Hungary .
Poland , under the Law and Justice party , has followed Hungary ’ s lead in breaking down checks and balances , centralizing power , and using scapegoats ( in Poland ’ s case , mostly the “ threat ” of LGBT rights ) to justify it .
If Hungary can save itself , it could provide a model for the democratic opposition in Warsaw , and perhaps as far away as Ankara and Manila .
If the opposition fails , Hungarians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
And while neither Washington nor Brussels can make the decision for them , the Biden administration should be clear about what kind of Hungary is in the West ’ s interest—and indeed in the long-term interest of the Hungarian public .
Hint : not a cronyist , authoritarian one .

From Russia to Turkey to Hungary, the power of authoritarians reflects the weakness and dysfunction of their opponents. While often a result of government repression, the inability of the opposition to get its act together is sometimes self-inflicted and driven by the narcissism of small differences, political disagreements that may have mattered in earlier times but are irrelevant to the defeat of the local strongman.
For over a decade, the Hungarian opposition was fragmented, disorganized, and generally hapless. In the meantime, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political movement, Fidesz, adopted a new constitution, packed the courts, repeatedly defied EU institutions, spouted conspiracy theories featuring George Soros, and cozied up to Russia—and rewrote the electoral rules. Today, Fidesz’s control of the government administration, public broadcasting, print media, and even much of the economy is near-complete. As the recent compromise on the EU’s budget shows, Europe has largely resigned itself to the situation.
The tide might be turning, however. In the 2022 parliamentary election, Hungary’s six leading opposition parties are planning to agree on a common manifesto, to draw a single electoral list—running one joint candidate to oppose Fidesz in each district, and to present a shared candidate for prime minister.
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 move responds to the latest changes to Hungary’s highly complex electoral law, which distinguishes between national party lists and candidates fielded in specific constituencies. According to the most recent reform, rushed through parliament during the current state of emergency, national lists will be allowed only for parties that run candidates everywhere in the country. Not only is that condition onerous for smaller parties, but it also means a mutual cannibalization of opposition candidates.
Orbán is betting that the broad-based alliance, which includes the formerly far-right Jobbik, the Socialists, as well as the Greens and the liberal, pro-Western Momentum Movement, will fail. He may be right—not so long ago, Jobbik was a de facto neo-Nazi movement that once called for compiling lists of publicly active Jews. Since then, it has pivoted strongly to the center, because Orbán’s governing Fidesz leaves no room to its right, especially on issues of immigration and national identity. The Socialists are (reformed and democratized) heirs to Hungary’s pre-1989 Workers Party, still drawing, in part, on communist-era cadres. Meanwhile, Momentum has built its following among highly educated, liberal, young, and urban voters.
Yet there is a non-trivial chance that the Hungarian prime minister is overplaying his cards. Opinion polls suggest that a single opposition bloc would stand a decent chance of winning—and in fact turning Orbán’s highly majoritarian reforms against him.
A lot of uncertainty remains. The country may see a strong economic recovery after the pandemic. After having mobilized his supporters against globalist financiers, asylum seekers, and gays, Orbán will doubtless seek to set them against some other external threat. He will need to identify enemies, scapegoats, and hate figures to counterbalance rising dissatisfaction with the status quo, marked by a brain drain and (pre-pandemic) fragile economic growth.
Past experiences of opposition cooperation should make Fidesz nervous too. Shortly before the 2018 parliamentary election, the opposition, including Jobbik, agreed on a single candidate in a mayoral race in Fidesz’s stronghold of Hódmezővásárhely. The opposition candidate comfortably defeated Fidesz in a city that had not had a non-Fidesz mayor since the fall of communism. Last year, in a mayoral election in Budapest, much of the opposition united behind Gergely Karácsony. While Jobbik did not explicitly endorse him, it did not run its own candidate either, allowing Karácsony to win handily.
Of course, the obstacles to cooperation and coordination for the new opposition bloc are larger in national races than in local ones. At the same time, as Samuel Johnson famously argued, the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight concentrates one’s mind. Should Orbán win a fourth term in a country lacking basic checks and balances, the prospect of a democratic Hungary would be gone for good. The EU’s current tolerance of Orbán’s regime notwithstanding, the 2022 election will be about the country’s fundamental character—can Hungary still be a European democracy, or is the brief post-communist period of freedom and democracy emphatically over?
The answer to that question has ramifications beyond Hungary. Poland, under the Law and Justice party, has followed Hungary’s lead in breaking down checks and balances, centralizing power, and using scapegoats (in Poland’s case, mostly the “threat” of LGBT rights) to justify it. If Hungary can save itself, it could provide a model for the democratic opposition in Warsaw, and perhaps as far away as Ankara and Manila.
If the opposition fails, Hungarians will not have another chance to save their democracy. And while neither Washington nor Brussels can make the decision for them, the Biden administration should be clear about what kind of Hungary is in the West’s interest—and indeed in the long-term interest of the Hungarian public. Hint: not a cronyist, authoritarian one.


thebulwark--2020-12-24--The United States Needs an Iran Policy—Any Iran Policy

President Donald Trump ’ s doesn ’ t have many policy accomplishments to claim , and in foreign affairs his successes are particularly sparse .
If there were one region of the world where American interests have been advanced under his leadership , however , it would be the Middle East .
When he came to power , the dynamics of the region were reshuffling .
Thanks to Iran ’ s bid for regional hegemony and America ’ s gradual withdrawal , the Arab states and Israel were already aligning to contain Iran .
The Trump administration deserves credit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s capabilities .
Yet , although the Trump administration put pressure on the Iranian regime for the time being , it achieved no durable successes .
For all its targeted killings , threats , sanctions , and other tactics , the administration had no Iran policy .
The administration has failed to contain Iran militarily or push back against its regional proxies : It didn ’ t kick Iran ’ s military out of Iraq and Syria , and the U.S.-sponsored Saudi-UAE coalition has failed to win the Yemeni Civil War against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clandestine operations to sabotage Iran ’ s military and nuclear capabilities , almost certainly conducted by the Israeli intelligence with a nod from the United States , and a few cyberattacks against Iran ’ s military installments , albeit with little significant strategic cost for Iran .
But for all of the Trump administration ’ s isolated blows and jabs , the Islamic Republic is now closer to making a nuclear weapon than when Trump entered office , and its foothold in the region has not weakened as the United States is gradually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s stated desire to negotiate a new agreement with Iran after the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) , Iran never budged .
America ’ s anti-Iran coalition includes Israel and the Arab autocracies , while no European or Asian country has joined the alliance .
Despite Iran ’ s violationsof the JCPOA , the United States has failed to persuade other parties—the United Kingdom , France , Germany , Russia , and China—to withdraw .
It also failed to convince the U.N. to extend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
The one constant in the Trump administration ’ s approach to Iran was economic pressure .
Regardless of other developments , opportunities , and crisis in the relationship , the administration continuously squeezed the Iranian economy .
After Mike Pompeo and John Bolton , both Iran-hawks , replaced Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and H.R .
McMaster as national security advisor respectively , the administration went on offense against Iran ’ s economy .
Soon after Bolton ’ s ascent to power , the United States announced its intent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unprecedented sanctions , most importantly against Iran ’ s oil exports .
The administration maintained that regime change was never a policy , though manyspeculated that it was .
Bolton is an outspoken proponent of regime change .
Rudy Giuliani , a member of the president ’ s kitchen cabinet , is also a regime change advocate .
Faced with mixed signals , Iran ’ s regime assumed the worst and girded itself against an attempted overthrow .
In the first year of the Trump administration , the Iranian regime faced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that point .
The Trump administration was caught off guard and failed to capitalize on the opportunity .
The protests were suppressed for the time being , having accomplished about as much as the Green Movement protests early in Obama ’ s first term—i.e.
, nothing .
In November 2019 , protests erupted again , surpassing the intensity and size of the 2017 demonstrations .
The regime disconnected the internet for a week and killed at least 1,500 protesters .
If the administration ’ s plan was to spark protests to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had no plans to help the protests beyond presidential tweets .
It had , purposefully or accidentally , sent signals that it intended to help topple the regime , but it had no plans to do so , nor , apparently , any idea of how to handle the mass protests that have become more common in the country since 2009 .
Throughout its tenure , the administration resisted using the military against Iran .
In May and June of 2019 , Iran attacked five foreign-flagged tanker ships and shot down an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was no American response .
In case the demonstration of diffidence was unclear , reports publicized that Trump called off a retaliatory strike on Iran as the planes were in the air , a demonstration of weakness that emboldened Iran .
The next month , Iran detained a British tanker .
In September , either directly or through proxies , it attacked the largest Saudi oil refinery and caused significant damage to Saudi Arabia ’ s oil production capacity .
For all its talk of strength and maximum pressure , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging more aggression , piracy , and violence .
When , in the first days of 2020 , the United States finally conducted an attack and killed Iran ’ s diplomat-general , Qassem Soleimani , Iran ’ s regime decided to engage in face-saving retaliation , warning Americans in Iraq about an incoming military strike to avoid American deaths .
Iran ’ s foreign minister , Javad Zarif , tweeted in English that “ Iran took [ and ] concluded proportionate measures in self-defense.
” “ Concluded ” was the keyword , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Trump administration complied and did not respond .
In the following months , Iran increased proxy attacks in Iraq , killing two Americans and one British servicemember .
Iran ’ s policy was to compel the United States to withdraw from Iraq , and in September , CENTCOM Commander Ken McKenzie announced a reduction of U.S. forces .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration ’ s sanctions on Iran—and especially its threat of secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with sanctioned Iranian entities—slowly throttled the Iranian economy , forcing a decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off from its more understanding European partners , Tehran turned to Beijing .
Earlier this year , the news broke that Iran and China are nearing an agreement that will provide Iran with economic relief in return for military cooperation : Preventing two sovereign states from an agreement between themselves is complicated .
At the very least , it requires carrots that the Trump administration has been unwilling to give to Iran and the stick of credible military threat that the Trump administration has proven too weak , too disorganized , or both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , slowly choking out Iran ’ s productive capacity but producing no other results .
Economic sanctions are neither a policy nor a strategy .
For a policy to succeed , there first need to be clear objectives , which are thoroughly communicated with the adversary .
Then , all levers of foreign policy must be coordinated to formulate and execute a strategy to obtain those objectives .
The Trump administration never articulated a policy ; or , if it did , the mixed signals failed to communicate it to the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone the regime in Iran .
There was never a strategy beyond sanctions and one-off military operations .
The Trump administration built considerable economic leverage against Iran , but it never made any diplomatic effort to engage Iran and bring that leverage to fruition .
This was partially because the administration hadn ’ t convinced Iran that it wanted to negotiate , rather than overthrow the regime—it is unclear whether the administration , while Bolton was there , had resolved that question internally .
The other problem was that economic pressure on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to negotiate , partly due to the administration ’ s failure to convince allies to join the sanctions regime—to say nothing of Russia and China .
The Trump administration crippled the Iranian economy .
Yet , Iran is on the offensive in Iraq and Syria and has fought America ’ s allies to a draw in Yemen .
In the free world , the United States failed to drive a wedge between its democratic allies and Iran , even though Iran is in violation of the JCPOA .
Iran ’ s enrichment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past two years have inched it closer to a nuclear bomb .
Meanwhile , Trump wasted two opportunities to overthrow the regime , doubling his predecessor ’ s record .
The Trump administration ’ s sanctions regime against Iran is yet another reminder that sanctions are an insufficient lever against autocracies , especially in the short run .
Autocracies , unlike democracies , are not beholden to their peoples ’ economic conditions to stay in power , and they can learn to live with sanctions .
To the extent that Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been for the better .
Future administrations will be wise to remember that every policy should begin with a clear statement of the objectives to the American people , adversaries , and allies .
Ambiguity is a weakness .
The Biden administration , however , should avoid reduccio ad Trumpum fallacy that everything Trump did is bad because Trump is bad .
Returning to the JCPOA is alluring to the Biden team , but it is impractical .
Iran is in violation , and the expiration of conventional arms embargo on Iran threatens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its allies .
The next administration should begin with a clear statement of its objectives with Iran , whatever they are .
In advancing those objectives , it should use all levers of power—diplomatic , economic , and yes , even military .
The Trump administration proved with the Soleimani strike that limited military action against Iran does not have to escalate to a full-fledged war .
The next administration should support future protests and dissents , continue to support sabotage spearheaded by Israel , and push Iran ’ s military out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden administration would benefit from a credible threat of use of force against Iran ’ s key conventional and nuclear military establishments .
Most importantly , however , Biden should remember that every administration since Carter has tried and failed to change Iran ’ s behavior , and even when Iran was abiding by the terms of the JCPOA , its regional aggression accelerated .
As Michael McFaul , who served at the National Security Council and as ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration , recently observed , “ We can and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But no one should have illusions that bilateral relations will ever become normal as long as the theocrats remain in power .
”

President Donald Trump doesn’t have many policy accomplishments to claim, and in foreign affairs his successes are particularly sparse. If there were one region of the world where American interests have been advanced under his leadership, however, it would be the Middle East. When he came to power, the dynamics of the region were reshuffling. Thanks to Iran’s bid for regional hegemony and America’s gradual withdrawal, the Arab states and Israel were already aligning to contain Iran. The Trump administration deserves credit for accelerating that process and weakening Iran’s capabilities.
Yet, although the Trump administration put pressure on the Iranian regime for the time being, it achieved no durable successes. For all its targeted killings, threats, sanctions, and other tactics, the administration had no Iran policy.
The administration has failed to contain Iran militarily or push back against its regional proxies: It didn’t kick Iran’s military out of Iraq and Syria, and the U.S.-sponsored Saudi-UAE coalition has failed to win the Yemeni Civil War against the Iran-backed Houthis. There have been successful clandestine operations to sabotage Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, almost certainly conducted by the Israeli intelligence with a nod from the United States, and a few cyberattacks against Iran’s military installments, albeit with little significant strategic cost for Iran. But for all of the Trump administration’s isolated blows and jabs, the Islamic Republic is now closer to making a nuclear weapon than when Trump entered office, and its foothold in the region has not weakened as the United States is gradually departing the Middle East.
Despite the administration’s stated desire to negotiate a new agreement with Iran after the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran never budged. America’s anti-Iran coalition includes Israel and the Arab autocracies, while no European or Asian country has joined the alliance. Despite Iran’s violationsof the JCPOA, the United States has failed to persuade other parties—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China—to withdraw. It also failed to convince the U.N. to extend the conventional arms embargo that expired two months ago.
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 one constant in the Trump administration’s approach to Iran was economic pressure. Regardless of other developments, opportunities, and crisis in the relationship, the administration continuously squeezed the Iranian economy.
After Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, both Iran-hawks, replaced Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and H.R. McMaster as national security advisor respectively, the administration went on offense against Iran’s economy. Soon after Bolton’s ascent to power, the United States announced its intent to withdraw from the JCPOA and a series of unprecedented sanctions, most importantly against Iran’s oil exports.
The administration maintained that regime change was never a policy, though manyspeculated that it was. Bolton is an outspoken proponent of regime change. Rudy Giuliani, a member of the president’s kitchen cabinet, is also a regime change advocate. Faced with mixed signals, Iran’s regime assumed the worst and girded itself against an attempted overthrow.
In the first year of the Trump administration, the Iranian regime faced the most violent popular uprising against its authority to that point. The Trump administration was caught off guard and failed to capitalize on the opportunity. The protests were suppressed for the time being, having accomplished about as much as the Green Movement protests early in Obama’s first term—i.e., nothing.
In November 2019, protests erupted again, surpassing the intensity and size of the 2017 demonstrations. The regime disconnected the internet for a week and killed at least 1,500 protesters. If the administration’s plan was to spark protests to bring change, it failed catastrophically, as it had no plans to help the protests beyond presidential tweets. It had, purposefully or accidentally, sent signals that it intended to help topple the regime, but it had no plans to do so, nor, apparently, any idea of how to handle the mass protests that have become more common in the country since 2009.
Throughout its tenure, the administration resisted using the military against Iran. In May and June of 2019, Iran attacked five foreign-flagged tanker ships and shot down an expensive American drone in international airspace. There was no American response. In case the demonstration of diffidence was unclear, reports publicized that Trump called off a retaliatory strike on Iran as the planes were in the air, a demonstration of weakness that emboldened Iran. The next month, Iran detained a British tanker. In September, either directly or through proxies, it attacked the largest Saudi oil refinery and caused significant damage to Saudi Arabia’s oil production capacity. For all its talk of strength and maximum pressure, the Trump administration’s passivity only succeeded in encouraging more aggression, piracy, and violence.
When, in the first days of 2020, the United States finally conducted an attack and killed Iran’s diplomat-general, Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s regime decided to engage in face-saving retaliation, warning Americans in Iraq about an incoming military strike to avoid American deaths. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted in English that “Iran took [and] concluded proportionate measures in self-defense.” “Concluded” was the keyword, a signal that it was time for de-escalation. The Trump administration complied and did not respond.
In the following months, Iran increased proxy attacks in Iraq, killing two Americans and one British servicemember. Iran’s policy was to compel the United States to withdraw from Iraq, and in September, CENTCOM Commander Ken McKenzie announced a reduction of U.S. forces.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s sanctions on Iran—and especially its threat of secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with sanctioned Iranian entities—slowly throttled the Iranian economy, forcing a decline in Iran’s military budget. Cut off from its more understanding European partners, Tehran turned to Beijing. Earlier this year, the news broke that Iran and China are nearing an agreement that will provide Iran with economic relief in return for military cooperation:
The document also describes deepening military cooperation, potentially giving China a foothold in a region that has been a strategic preoccupation of the United States for decades. It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research and weapons development and intelligence sharing—all to fight “the lopsided battle with terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes.”
Preventing two sovereign states from an agreement between themselves is complicated. At the very least, it requires carrots that the Trump administration has been unwilling to give to Iran and the stick of credible military threat that the Trump administration has proven too weak, too disorganized, or both to use.
So the sanctions continued, slowly choking out Iran’s productive capacity but producing no other results.
Economic sanctions are neither a policy nor a strategy. For a policy to succeed, there first need to be clear objectives, which are thoroughly communicated with the adversary. Then, all levers of foreign policy must be coordinated to formulate and execute a strategy to obtain those objectives. The Trump administration never articulated a policy; or, if it did, the mixed signals failed to communicate it to the American people and America’s allies, let alone the regime in Iran. There was never a strategy beyond sanctions and one-off military operations.
The Trump administration built considerable economic leverage against Iran, but it never made any diplomatic effort to engage Iran and bring that leverage to fruition. This was partially because the administration hadn’t convinced Iran that it wanted to negotiate, rather than overthrow the regime—it is unclear whether the administration, while Bolton was there, had resolved that question internally. The other problem was that economic pressure on its own was not enough to compel Iran to negotiate, partly due to the administration’s failure to convince allies to join the sanctions regime—to say nothing of Russia and China.
The Trump administration crippled the Iranian economy. Yet, Iran is on the offensive in Iraq and Syria and has fought America’s allies to a draw in Yemen. In the free world, the United States failed to drive a wedge between its democratic allies and Iran, even though Iran is in violation of the JCPOA. Iran’s enrichment of uranium and accumulation of heavy water in the past two years have inched it closer to a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, Trump wasted two opportunities to overthrow the regime, doubling his predecessor’s record.
The Trump administration’s sanctions regime against Iran is yet another reminder that sanctions are an insufficient lever against autocracies, especially in the short run. Autocracies, unlike democracies, are not beholden to their peoples’ economic conditions to stay in power, and they can learn to live with sanctions. To the extent that Iran has changed its behavior, it has not been for the better.
Future administrations will be wise to remember that every policy should begin with a clear statement of the objectives to the American people, adversaries, and allies. Ambiguity is a weakness.
The Biden administration, however, should avoid reduccio ad Trumpum fallacy that everything Trump did is bad because Trump is bad. Returning to the JCPOA is alluring to the Biden team, but it is impractical. Iran is in violation, and the expiration of conventional arms embargo on Iran threatens the security of the United States and its allies.
The next administration should begin with a clear statement of its objectives with Iran, whatever they are. In advancing those objectives, it should use all levers of power—diplomatic, economic, and yes, even military. The Trump administration proved with the Soleimani strike that limited military action against Iran does not have to escalate to a full-fledged war.
The next administration should support future protests and dissents, continue to support sabotage spearheaded by Israel, and push Iran’s military out of foreign countries. Above all, the Biden administration would benefit from a credible threat of use of force against Iran’s key conventional and nuclear military establishments.
Most importantly, however, Biden should remember that every administration since Carter has tried and failed to change Iran’s behavior, and even when Iran was abiding by the terms of the JCPOA, its regional aggression accelerated. As Michael McFaul, who served at the National Security Council and as ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration, recently observed, “We can and should negotiate with Iran on arms control. But no one should have illusions that bilateral relations will ever become normal as long as the theocrats remain in power.”


thebulwark--2020-12-24--The Treasonous Pardon of Paul Manafort

The Treasonous Pardon of Paul Manafort

For four years we ’ ve been force-fed the preposterous dual notions that Donald Trump intended to “ drain the swamp ” and that any suggestion his campaign colluded with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election was a media hoax .
Both of those notions were eviscerated Wednesday once and for all , with a Christmas Eve Eve stroke of Trump ’ s pardon pen .
Amid a raft of indefensibly unscrupulous pardons issued hours after the resignation of the attorney general , that of Paul Manafort stands as the worst of the worst .
It will go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as among the most corrupt and self-serving actions taken by a chief executive .
To add injury to insult , it was an action taken while simultaneously engaging in a childish , high-stakes game of chicken with Congress that may result in the government shutting down—potentially denying COVID relief for millions of Americans during the holidays .
In any sane world—which is to say , not the world we inhabit—Trump ’ s pardoning of his cronies would result in a series of bipartisan reforms that ensure our government will never again be party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any sane world , a government that once aspired and still claims to be a model democracy would take this moment to say Stop .
To never again allow itself to be tarnished by a two-bit huckster who has as much respect for our laws and norms as he does for the women whose pussies he grabbed .
Yet we all know such reforms will not happen , not as long as the president ’ s whimpering butt boys refuse to do even the minimum to defend the institutions that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe are the envy of the world .
They will pretend this is business as usual .
They will compare it to corrupt pardons by Democrats past—pardons that , at the time , they rent their garments over .
Now , those old Democratic pardons are just a flimsy little dish-towel Trump ’ s defenders are using to try to hide their indignity and abasement .
Let there be no doubt .
The pardon of Paul Manafort is not business as usual .
It is not standard-fare political back-scratching .
It is unconscionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-American .
Paul Manafort is the will-o ’ -the-wisp of the Washington swamp .
This was the stated reason Trump brought him onto his campaign in the first place—to help guard against Republican establishment revolts at the 2016 convention .
Prior to Trump , Manafort worked at the highest levels of the slimy Washington influence space and for the most despotic and crooked clients imaginable , both foreign and domestic .
He was the fixer for a Russian revanchist tyrant in Ukraine who committed atrocities .
Through this experience he became deeply indebted—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian oligarch , Oleg Deripaska , who is close to Putin .
According to an ex-Russian spy and arms dealer , Manafort “ owed us a lot of money .
.
.
and he was offering ways to pay it back.
” The Russians weren ’ t the only people Manafort was in debt to .
When he joined the Trump campaign he was nearly broke , having racked up bills in the millions as he lived a life of luxury with absurd rugs and ugly but expensive suits .
Then , during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private emails of the Democratic candidate and funded a network of bots and social media outlets to push coordinated disinformation—Paul Manafort was providing private campaign briefings and access to allies of the perpetrators , in order to help pay off his debts .
He was the definition of a compromised asset .
When Special Counsel Robert Mueller tried to look into the details of the ties between Manafort ’ s Russian clients and the Russian hackers who were aiding the Trump campaign , they were stymied by his lies , his use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and his foreign business partners ’ lack of cooperation .
Later , when Manafort cut a plea deal with the government , he promised to testify “ fully , completely , and truthfully ” about his actions—but he then breached that plea , repeatedly being caught in lies including about his communications with Russian intelligence during the campaign .
During a deposition with the FBI , Manafort ’ s deputy Rick Gates admitted that this was of course intentional on Manafort ’ s part .
That his plan was to block the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump , and wait for a pardon .
“ Sit tight , ” Manafort apparently said .
“ We ’ ll be taken care of.
” Manafort ’ s bet paid off .
His conspiracy against our country paid off .
Because a corrupt , impeached , lame-duck president took care of him .
After this pardon no one should ever again accept the charge that the Russia investigation into the president was some sort of “ hoax.
” People who are the victims of hoaxes do not obstruct justice and obstruct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on our elections in history .
Here is the truth .
Paul Manafort is the human embodiment of every negative trope about influence peddling and the Washington swamp .
The Republican-led Senate investigation concluded : “ Manafort ’ s influence work .
.
.
was , in effect , influence work for the Russian government and its interests.
” Part of that work was providing access to the top levels of the Trump campaign , which the Russian government was covertly assisting across many vectors .
Manafort lied and concealed this collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to protect his own ass and to protect Donald Trump .
These actions were nothing short of treasonous .
So is this pardon .
It is the apotheosis of Donald Trump ’ s betrayal of his oath to our nation .

For four years we’ve been force-fed the preposterous dual notions that Donald Trump intended to “drain the swamp” and that any suggestion his campaign colluded with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election was a media hoax.
Both of those notions were eviscerated Wednesday once and for all, with a Christmas Eve Eve stroke of Trump’s pardon pen.
Amid a raft of indefensibly unscrupulous pardons issued hours after the resignation of the attorney general, that of Paul Manafort stands as the worst of the worst. It will go down in the annals of American history as among the most corrupt and self-serving actions taken by a chief executive.
To add injury to insult, it was an action taken while simultaneously engaging in a childish, high-stakes game of chicken with Congress that may result in the government shutting down—potentially denying COVID relief for millions of Americans during the holidays.
In any sane world—which is to say, not the world we inhabit—Trump’s pardoning of his cronies would result in a series of bipartisan reforms that ensure our government will never again be party to this type of kleptocratic lawlessness. In any sane world, a government that once aspired and still claims to be a model democracy would take this moment to say Stop. To never again allow itself to be tarnished by a two-bit huckster who has as much respect for our laws and norms as he does for the women whose pussies he grabbed.
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…
Yet we all know such reforms will not happen, not as long as the president’s whimpering butt boys refuse to do even the minimum to defend the institutions that they would tell you with a straight face they believe are the envy of the world.
They will pretend this is business as usual. They will compare it to corrupt pardons by Democrats past—pardons that, at the time, they rent their garments over. Now, those old Democratic pardons are just a flimsy little dish-towel Trump’s defenders are using to try to hide their indignity and abasement.
Let there be no doubt. The pardon of Paul Manafort is not business as usual. It is not standard-fare political back-scratching. It is unconscionable and enraging and perverse and abnormal and anti-American.
Paul Manafort is the will-o’-the-wisp of the Washington swamp. This was the stated reason Trump brought him onto his campaign in the first place—to help guard against Republican establishment revolts at the 2016 convention.
Prior to Trump, Manafort worked at the highest levels of the slimy Washington influence space and for the most despotic and crooked clients imaginable, both foreign and domestic. He was the fixer for a Russian revanchist tyrant in Ukraine who committed atrocities. Through this experience he became deeply indebted—to the tune of millions of dollars—to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who is close to Putin.
According to an ex-Russian spy and arms dealer, Manafort “owed us a lot of money . . . and he was offering ways to pay it back.” The Russians weren’t the only people Manafort was in debt to. When he joined the Trump campaign he was nearly broke, having racked up bills in the millions as he lived a life of luxury with absurd rugs and ugly but expensive suits.
Then, during the campaign—while a hostile foreign government hacked the private emails of the Democratic candidate and funded a network of bots and social media accounts to push coordinated disinformation—Paul Manafort was providing private campaign briefings and access to allies of the perpetrators, in order to help pay off his debts.
He was the definition of a compromised asset.
When Special Counsel Robert Mueller tried to look into the details of the ties between Manafort’s Russian clients and the Russian hackers who were aiding the Trump campaign, they were stymied by his lies, his use of “sophisticated communications security practices,” and his foreign business partners’ lack of cooperation.
Later, when Manafort cut a plea deal with the government, he promised to testify “fully, completely, and truthfully” about his actions—but he then breached that plea, repeatedly being caught in lies including about his communications with Russian intelligence during the campaign.
During a deposition with the FBI, Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates admitted that this was of course intentional on Manafort’s part. That his plan was to block the truth from coming out, stay loyal to Trump, and wait for a pardon. “Sit tight,” Manafort apparently said. “We’ll be taken care of.”
Manafort’s bet paid off. His conspiracy against our country paid off. Because a corrupt, impeached, lame-duck president took care of him.
After this pardon no one should ever again accept the charge that the Russia investigation into the president was some sort of “hoax.”
People who are the victims of hoaxes do not obstruct justice and obstruct the truth about the most serious foreign attack on our elections in history.
Here is the truth.
Paul Manafort is the human embodiment of every negative trope about influence peddling and the Washington swamp.
The Republican-led Senate investigation concluded: “Manafort’s influence work . . . was, in effect, influence work for the Russian government and its interests.”
Part of that work was providing access to the top levels of the Trump campaign, which the Russian government was covertly assisting across many vectors.
Manafort lied and concealed this collusion with Russian operatives at every possible opportunity in order to protect his own ass and to protect Donald Trump.
These actions were nothing short of treasonous.
So is this pardon.