thebulwark--2020-11-09--Spiritual Warriors on Behalf of Donald Trump

Listening to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump ’ s allies over the last few days as the ballots rolled in and his hopes of re-election dwindled , we were reminded of the ways in which religious history—which can sometimes feel distant and foreign to contemporary concerns—remains very relevant to the present .
In their language of warfare spiritual and secular , Trump ’ s evangelical allies have been playing with a fire that may continue to burn long after they give up this contest .
It is worth taking a moment to look closely at , and consider the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , yes , tweeting , the rhetoric of holy war .
Paula White , the president ’ s spiritual adviser , for example , spent last Wednesday night leading a Pentecostal prayer service , engaging in “ spiritual warfare ” for the purpose of securing Trump ’ s re-election .
The most sensational part—besides speaking in tongues—was the summoning of angels to fight for him , saying , “ For angels have even been dispatched from Africa right now .
.
.
.
In the name of Jesus from South America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later said that “ we come against people that are working at high levels right now with demonic confederacies ” who were working “ against the election , against America , against that who You have declared to be in the White House.
” Behind her as she preached was a man pacing back and forth with a Bible , possibly engaged in a “ Jericho March , ” a prayer walk to intercede , protect , enact change , etc .
If this was the “ spiritual ” warfare to try and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s former campaign strategist and senior counselor Steve Bannon had something less incorporeal in mind .
He said on his podcast that at the beginning of Trump ’ s second term , the president should execute Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray : “ I ’ d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England .
I ’ d put their heads on pikes , right , I ’ d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program or you ’ re gone.
” Bannon ’ s core political belief unites a clash-of-civilizations , defense-of-the-West conviction with a combative , ultraconservative Catholicism .
While his legal battles in the United States tend to get the most attention , it ’ s worth noting that he has also been engaged in a long legal clash in Italy over the control of a 13th-century monastery that he reportedly wants to turn into the headquarters for a project to realize his theological-political vision .
Not only does Bannon play around with neomedieval notions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habit of playing with violent tropes of the past .
Addressing ( virtually ) the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh at the end of October , he said that traditional Catholics needed to engage in war against myriad enemies standing against Donald Trump ’ s re-election .
Among the enemies : the “ compromised Vatican.
” At that same conference , Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò gave a speech saying that we are in the End Times and that a New World Order , the antithesis of Christian Society , exists and must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a major moral and spiritual conflict : The conference ’ s main homepage image shows four armed Knights Templar kneeling before a priest—coyly violent religious imagery heading a religious conference in which speakers preached violence against those opposing Donald Trump .
Both Paula White ’ s spiritual warfare and Bannon ’ s call to the faithful to engage in religiously inspired physical warfare bring to mind the Crusades—the holy wars launched by the Church in 1096 onwards against various Muslim powers .
The chroniclers of those wars recorded visions of saints , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battlefield , apocalyptic missions ending in the conquest of Jerusalem—referring to Revelation itself in the process .
Those ideas then spread beyond wars in the Levant to wars in Spain , violence against Jews across Europe , wars against “ pagans ” and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic , wars against heretics and rival lords in southern France , wars against political enemies in Italy , wars against proto-Protestants in Bohemia .
( Arguably the last of these conflicts was during the age of Napoleon . )
Once the rhetoric of holy war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virus , spreads and mutates and never seems to die .
On Thursday , as President Trump ’ s electoral defeat seemed ever more inevitable , televangelist George Pearsons took to the airwaves to apprise the faithful of the horrific situation facing “ God ’ s president.
” Alternating between speaking directly as God and for God , Pearson warned that he ( presumably God ) was angry with what was happening to his ordained leader and that retribution was underway .
It was a declaration that evangelical conservatism alone is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanction or retribution .
Pearsons hardly stands alone .
History is a wasteland of religious justifications for political activism , identity , and violence .
On the other hand , Christianity , and American Christianity especially , has arguably possessed more than its fair share of these unions of political thought and religious belief .
Millennialism—essentially the idea that through constantly improving and reforming society , mankind could prepare and even accelerate the return of Jesus Christ and his physical kingdom on Earth—was a defining feature of Puritan thought , and after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in almost all the Protestant sects who dominated early American culture and politics .
Flawed laws and leaders , sinful social behaviors , and even the toleration of practices and peoples of other beliefs were all seen as potentially hindering the literal second coming of Christ .
The quintessentially American variation of apocalyptic millennialism has had a range of consequences .
On the positive side of the ledger : During the colonial and Revolutionary periods , when religious leaders were shapers of democratic and pluralistic political thought in the colonies , evangelicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to broaden political access and to question temporal rulers , and they established individual agency and freedom as the key ingredients to both good government and a godly society .
Even at the time , many people saw this belief system as linked to the American Revolution , as clergy exhorted soldiers and civilians to regard the cause of American liberty as synonymous with the will of heaven .
The early Republic saw this same merging of religious and political activism promote a variety of social reforms .
And the long arc of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the abolition of slavery , public education , aspects of the welfare state , and even environmental conservationism—was connected to the belief that salvation depends on constant political activism designed to win God ’ s favor .
Yet the inability to separate political exigencies and actors from religious meaning also produced some of the darkest chapters in American history .
Natives who refused Christian conversion did not fit into the architecture of a godly society and were exterminated , expelled , and displaced with near unanimous approval .
At least part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolutionary era—many were stripped of citizenship and had their property seized ; some were killed in public lynchings ; others were forcibly deported—is that their rejection of separation from Great Britain was seen by some patriots as hindering the creation of God ’ s kingdom .
Fourscore years later , Southern religious leaders invoked God to defend slavery and , when civil conflict loomed , advocated a treasonous rebellion to defend it .
In the 20th century , this alliance of religious conviction and political identity gave us potent conservative movements like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolling back the rights of women and homosexuals—and led directly to today ’ s marriage of evangelicals and the Republican party , on which Donald Trump has depended .
Some of Trump ’ s supporters wanted him re-elected to help bring about that millennial kingdom .
Some showed up to the Clark County , Nevada election department to kneel and pray “ that righteousness prevails ” while wearing red MAGA hats .
Some cast the election in Manichaean terms .
Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana , for example , tweeted about “ Freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total government control , ” essentializing to good and evil , before saying “ Make your stand ” and quoting George Washington .
On Thursday , Higgins tweeted out Psalms 55:9-11 : You need not be an elite exegete to detect in Higgins ’ s tweet a call to holy violence , whether spiritual or physical , in service of Trump ’ s re-election .
These themes from Christian history , be it the Crusades or colonial America , never really seem to go away ; notions of sacred violence , and of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous longevity .
Of course , evangelical Christianity is not monolithic , and one of the compelling social conflicts of our time will be the battle to dominate the future and meaning of its apocalyptic strain .
At the same time , with public tension and political extremism coming into full view surrounding Donald Trump and his coalition ’ s loss of the presidency , it is worth remembering that our leaders have a responsibility to consider their words and beliefs carefully .
“ God wills it ” is an idea that can @ @ @

Listening to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump’s allies over the last few days as the ballots rolled in and his hopes of re-election dwindled, we were reminded of the ways in which religious history—which can sometimes feel distant and foreign to contemporary concerns—remains very relevant to the present. In their language of warfare spiritual and secular, Trump’s evangelical allies have been playing with a fire that may continue to burn long after they give up this contest. It is worth taking a moment to look closely at, and consider the consequences of, their preaching and shouting and, yes, tweeting, the rhetoric of holy war.
Paula White, the president’s spiritual adviser, for example, spent last Wednesday night leading a Pentecostal prayer service, engaging in “spiritual warfare” for the purpose of securing Trump’s re-election. The most sensational part—besides speaking in tongues—was the summoning of angels to fight for him, saying, “For angels have even been dispatched from Africa right now. . . . In the name of Jesus from South America, they’re coming here.”
White later said that “we come against people that are working at high levels right now with demonic confederacies” who were working “against the election, against America, against that who You have declared to be in the White House.” Behind her as she preached was a man pacing back and forth with a Bible, possibly engaged in a “Jericho March,” a prayer walk to intercede, protect, enact change, etc.
If this was the “spiritual” warfare to try and re-elect Donald Trump through holy violence, Trump’s former campaign strategist and senior counselor Steve Bannon had something less incorporeal in mind. He said on his podcast that at the beginning of Trump’s second term, the president should execute Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray: “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put their heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the program or you’re gone.”
Bannon’s core political belief unites a clash-of-civilizations, defense-of-the-West conviction with a combative, ultraconservative Catholicism. While his legal battles in the United States tend to get the most attention, it’s worth noting that he has also been engaged in a long legal clash in Italy over the control of a 13th-century monastery that he reportedly wants to turn into the headquarters for a project to realize his theological-political vision.
Not only does Bannon play around with neomedieval notions of executions, he has made a habit of playing with violent tropes of the past. Addressing (virtually) the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh at the end of October, he said that traditional Catholics needed to engage in war against myriad enemies standing against Donald Trump’s re-election. Among the enemies: the “compromised Vatican.”
At that same conference, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò gave a speech saying that we are in the End Times and that a New World Order, the antithesis of Christian Society, exists and must be fought. Viganò connected the U.S. election to a major moral and spiritual conflict:
Allow me a brief word about the political situation in the United States on the eve of the presidential election. Fratelli Tutti [i.e., Pope Francis’s latest encyclical, published in October] seems to be a form of Vatican endorsement of the Democratic candidate, in clear opposition to Donald Trump, and come a few days after Francis refused to grant audience to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Rome. This confirms which side the children of light are on, and who the children of darkness are.
The conference’s main homepage image shows four armed Knights Templar kneeling before a priest—coyly violent religious imagery heading a religious conference in which speakers preached violence against those opposing Donald Trump.
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…
Both Paula White’s spiritual warfare and Bannon’s call to the faithful to engage in religiously inspired physical warfare bring to mind the Crusades—the holy wars launched by the Church in 1096 onwards against various Muslim powers. The chroniclers of those wars recorded visions of saints, angelic hosts joining the soldiers on the battlefield, apocalyptic missions ending in the conquest of Jerusalem—referring to Revelation itself in the process. Those ideas then spread beyond wars in the Levant to wars in Spain, violence against Jews across Europe, wars against “pagans” and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic, wars against heretics and rival lords in southern France, wars against political enemies in Italy, wars against proto-Protestants in Bohemia. (Arguably the last of these conflicts was during the age of Napoleon.) Once the rhetoric of holy war is used, the idea, like a virus, spreads and mutates and never seems to die.
On Thursday, as President Trump’s electoral defeat seemed ever more inevitable, televangelist George Pearsons took to the airwaves to apprise the faithful of the horrific situation facing “God’s president.” Alternating between speaking directly as God and for God, Pearson warned that he (presumably God) was angry with what was happening to his ordained leader and that retribution was underway. It was a declaration that evangelical conservatism alone is the arbiter of who or what deserves divine sanction or retribution.
Pearsons hardly stands alone. History is a wasteland of religious justifications for political activism, identity, and violence. On the other hand, Christianity, and American Christianity especially, has arguably possessed more than its fair share of these unions of political thought and religious belief. Millennialism—essentially the idea that through constantly improving and reforming society, mankind could prepare and even accelerate the return of Jesus Christ and his physical kingdom on Earth—was a defining feature of Puritan thought, and after the Great Awakening, its influence could be seen in almost all the Protestant sects who dominated early American culture and politics. Flawed laws and leaders, sinful social behaviors, and even the toleration of practices and peoples of other beliefs were all seen as potentially hindering the literal second coming of Christ.
The quintessentially American variation of apocalyptic millennialism has had a range of consequences. On the positive side of the ledger: During the colonial and Revolutionary periods, when religious leaders were shapers of democratic and pluralistic political thought in the colonies, evangelicals embraced anti-authoritarianism and anti-elitism. They pushed to broaden political access and to question temporal rulers, and they established individual agency and freedom as the key ingredients to both good government and a godly society. Even at the time, many people saw this belief system as linked to the American Revolution, as clergy exhorted soldiers and civilians to regard the cause of American liberty as synonymous with the will of heaven. The early Republic saw this same merging of religious and political activism promote a variety of social reforms. And the long arc of major American social reforms—expanding the franchise, the abolition of slavery, public education, aspects of the welfare state, and even environmental conservationism—was connected to the belief that salvation depends on constant political activism designed to win God’s favor.
Yet the inability to separate political exigencies and actors from religious meaning also produced some of the darkest chapters in American history. Natives who refused Christian conversion did not fit into the architecture of a godly society and were exterminated, expelled, and displaced with near unanimous approval. At least part of the reason loyalists were treated roughly during the Revolutionary era—many were stripped of citizenship and had their property seized; some were killed in public lynchings; others were forcibly deported—is that their rejection of separation from Great Britain was seen by some patriots as hindering the creation of God’s kingdom. Fourscore years later, Southern religious leaders invoked God to defend slavery and, when civil conflict loomed, advocated a treasonous rebellion to defend it. In the 20th century, this alliance of religious conviction and political identity gave us potent conservative movements like the Moral Majority and its antiprogressive agenda of rolling back the rights of women and homosexuals—and led directly to today’s marriage of evangelicals and the Republican party, on which Donald Trump has depended.
Some of Trump’s supporters wanted him re-elected to help bring about that millennial kingdom. Some showed up to the Clark County, Nevada election department to kneel and pray “that righteousness prevails” while wearing red MAGA hats. Some cast the election in Manichaean terms. Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, for example, tweeted about “Freedom or oppression. A free Republic or total government control,” essentializing to good and evil, before saying “Make your stand” and quoting George Washington. On Thursday, Higgins tweeted out Psalms 55:9-11:
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city. Day and night they go about it upon the walls thereof… Wickedness is in the midst thereof: deceit and guile depart not from her streets.
Psalms 55:9-11 KJV — Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) November 5, 2020
You need not be an elite exegete to detect in Higgins’s tweet a call to holy violence, whether spiritual or physical, in service of Trump’s re-election. These themes from Christian history, be it the Crusades or colonial America, never really seem to go away; notions of sacred violence, and of apocalyptic millennialism, have a powerful and dangerous longevity. Of course, evangelical Christianity is not monolithic, and one of the compelling social conflicts of our time will be the battle to dominate the future and meaning of its apocalyptic strain. At the same time, with public tension and political extremism coming into full view surrounding Donald Trump and his coalition’s loss of the presidency, it is worth remembering that our leaders have a responsibility to consider their words and beliefs carefully. “God wills it” is an idea that can draw blood.


Relax, Cousins

Fireworks lit up the night sky over London after Joe Biden was projected by news outlets to be the winner in last week ’ s presidential election .
If it was anything like the mood in the liberal precincts of America ’ s cities , the fireworks were meant to celebrate Donald Trump ’ s departure from the White House more than Biden ’ s arrival in it .
But not everyone in the sceptered isle is so keen to see Trump ’ s backside .
A very different narrative is being spun by some in the British press that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British will miss dearly .
Case in point : Douglas Murray , a sharp polemicist who writes widely on matters of politics and culture , argues that Biden “ and the Democrat high command ” have no affinity for modern Britain .
Some readers will recall the conservative consternation on both sides of the pond over President Obama ’ s decision to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office .
( At the time , now-Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that Obama was motivated by an “ ancestral dislike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , this latest bout of paranoia seems poorly defined and overdetermined .
In Murray ’ s mind , Biden and his surrogates “ loathe Brexit Britain.
” On what grounds does he justify this bold claim ?
Murray cites Democrats ’ belief that the Brexit movement had something to do with the election of Donald Trump .
This is quite strange .
After all , many Trump-aligned Republicans feel the same way .
Trump himself endorsed Brexit and was in turn endorsed by many leading Brexiteers .
In the waning days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deranged Brexiteer Nigel Farage appeared at a Trump rally in Arizona .
This was a surpassingly odd choice , since there ’ s scant evidence that EU agricultural tariffs were a primary motivator of swing voters in Scottsdale .
In any case , it would be hard to miss the connection between twin campaigns ostensibly launched against the globalist elite in the Anglosphere in the same year .
It ’ s a sound bet that Biden , and most of the Democratic elite , had grave misgivings regarding Britain ’ s 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So too , one might add , did a majority of the British governing class , both Labour and Tory . )
But it strains credulity that a leader in the mold of Biden , elected on the promise of uniting his own divided nation , would regard 52 percent of the British public ( the number that voted to quit the EU in the 2016 referendum ) as speaking for the whole of Great Britain .
The assumption that Biden is driven by some deep animosity to the U.K. is wholly without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murray fails to give a single example of it .
Murray does not stop there , alas .
He proceeds to suggest that the humiliated Trump is “ a great friend of the U.K. ” This is not merely speculative and provocative ; it is something close to lunacy .
To refute the assertion that Donald Trump is a friend of the British people , one need not show that he is the antithesis of the Victorian virtues .
One need not prove that he is completely ignorant of , and indifferent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not even necessary to show that his upper lip is distinctly soft , or that he has adopted the label of those isolationists who wished to abandon Britain in its lonely fight against the Luftwaffe .
It is simply a category error to think that Trump , a pathological narcissist , is even capable of affection or allegiance of this sort .
This has been the blind spot of the vast majority of Trump ’ s apologists from the beginning , presuming that this kind of man could ever be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump will ever make plain , he can serve no cause greater than himself because he feels no passion—and has no competence—for principle beyond self-interest .
Murray ignores the crushing weight of this contrary evidence and instead notes a technical point about Trump ’ s years-long support for what Murray dubs a “ generous ” trade deal with Brexit Britain , concluding that “ he is on our side.
” But it ’ s not remotely true that Trump was keen to help our British friends in their hour of need .
Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S.-U.K. free trade pact , Trump slapped Britain with erroneous national-security tariffs on steel and aluminum , as Thomas Wright noted in Politico .
The Trump administration also hinted that Britain may have to unravel key features of its overwhelmingly popular National Health Service in exchange for inking a deal .
As Trump enters the final weeks of his administration , it ’ s a credulous fool who thinks there ’ s a shadow of a chance for a trade deal to be finalized in between outrageous tweets heaping scorn on American democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own .
None of this is to say that President Biden will make a uniformly excellent steward of U.S. foreign policy .
Many of Trump ’ s sins of commission will be repudiated but many of Obama ’ s sins of omission will likely be replicated .
One gets the impression that Biden understands that after years of scorn and malign neglect , Europeans and Britons must be enjoined to come in from the cold .
NATO , and the principle of collective security that undergirds it , will receive the respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be treated as a foe of the United States .
Biden may even have learned from experience that the dangers of unchecked Russian adventurism demand a firm American response at the head of a broad European alliance .
No more ill-fated resets with Vladimir Putin , much less the kind of kowtowing to which the Russian despot has become accustomed .
This would all accord with Biden ’ s larger dispensation to promote American principles and Western unity .
The return of great power competition has reignited the antique struggle between democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to American neutrality in this contest .
This posture should give heart to depressed democracies around the world , although whether Asian democracies have cause for relief will be measured by the seriousness of Washington ’ s strategy toward China , which remains an open question .
And there ’ s considerable reason for pessimism about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East .
It is this realm where the Obama administration most obviously shirked its duties to advance American interests and principles .
Its abdication of responsibility here was founded on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress that would garner high marks at the American University of Beirut , but which fared poorly against the harsh realities of the region .
Obama ’ s casual indifference to murderous Iranian expansionism was paired with steely indifference to the cause of Iranian dissidents protesting a fraudulent election put on display by a moribund theocracy .
The distaste for imperial policing led the Obama administration to abort the Iraq expedition before consensual government and a monopoly on force had taken hold in Baghdad , which precipitated the return of Islamist violence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war broke out late in Obama ’ s first term , and continued every day of his second term without a modicum of American power being brought to bear to suspend that vast butchery .
The Obama administration ’ s acute opposition to Israel ’ s occupation of the West Bank was not attended by any great efforts to assuage Israeli fears .
And so , although Biden will almost certainly reinvigorate the wounded Western alliance , he may well fail to revive America ’ s diminished position in the Middle East .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stakes of America ’ s growing competition with China require that the American president act in a concerted manner to build up situations of strength in East Asia .
Toward this end , Biden should follow his instinct to shore up America ’ s security alliances and economic partnerships .
Both have suffered sustained structural damage , and repairing them will require a delicate combination of intelligence and imagination as well as spine and sinew .
In February 1941 , Henry Luce famously took to the pages of Life to declare the birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial , which today is more often cited than actually read , had two main objectives .
In the near term , it called upon the United States to abandon its isolationism and join the battle against the Axis powers .
In the longer term , it summoned the United States to supplant Britain as the chief guarantor of world order and build an international system conducive to “ American principles.
” Eighty years later , the United States has broadly fulfilled the role Luce imagined for it .
In the three decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , Americans have demonstrated rising ambivalence about the continued viability ( and in some cases morality ) of this role .
Despite a brief exception after September 11 , 2001 when the United States deployed its power to the Hindu Kush and Mesopotamia with the broad assent of the American public , it has grown to resemble—psychologically if not materially—the very sort of weary titan that Britain was after its ferocious confrontation with Hitler .
Donald Trump has been the ugliest possible manifestation of this growing American diffidence and timidity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and palatable expression of an America that was no longer keenly interested in the business of upholding the liberal world order .
But whereas Barack Obama generally preferred to conceal American retrenchment with paeans to American global leadership , Trump has been a gratuitous flouter of American-established norms without any pretense of hypocrisy .
Obama promised “ nation-building at home , ” signaling to friend and foe alike that they would have to find their way in a world devoid of American leadership .
Trump offered a program of “ America First ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sworn adversaries with obsequious praise—the love letters Trump exchanged with Kim Jong-un will live in infamy .
Undoing the damage done to the country ’ s elaborately constructed and long-maintained system of alliances will be the first order of business for the incoming Biden administration .
America ’ s allies will be watching closely to ascertain whether Biden ’ s promise of improved alliance-maintenance is more than mere rhetoric .
In light of Biden ’ s long-honed political instincts , as well as the contemporary nature of the Democratic party , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will stand in stark contrast to Trump ’ s performance , which has been almost uniformly dreadful .
Winston Churchill , to invoke another figure conservatives like to cite more than read nowadays , told a story about the man who received a telegram reporting the death of his mother-in-law and asking for instructions .
The man telegraphed back : “ Embalm , cremate , bury at sea .
Take no chances.
” Americans , Britons , and all who revere the liberal order ought to adopt a similar approach to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fireworks lit up the night sky over London after Joe Biden was projected by news outlets to be the winner in last week’s presidential election. If it was anything like the mood in the liberal precincts of America’s cities, the fireworks were meant to celebrate Donald Trump’s departure from the White House more than Biden’s arrival in it.
But not everyone in the sceptered isle is so keen to see Trump’s backside. A very different narrative is being spun by some in the British press that Trump was actually a stalwart friend whom the British will miss dearly.
Case in point: Douglas Murray, a sharp polemicist who writes widely on matters of politics and culture, argues that Biden “and the Democrat high command” have no affinity for modern Britain. Some readers will recall the conservative consternation on both sides of the pond over President Obama’s decision to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. (At the time, now-Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that Obama was motivated by an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”) Once more, this latest bout of paranoia seems poorly defined and overdetermined.
In Murray’s mind, Biden and his surrogates “loathe Brexit Britain.” On what grounds does he justify this bold claim? Murray cites Democrats’ belief that the Brexit movement had something to do with the election of Donald Trump. This is quite strange. After all, many Trump-aligned Republicans feel the same way. Trump himself endorsed Brexit and was in turn endorsed by many leading Brexiteers. In the waning days of the 2020 presidential campaign, the visage of deranged Brexiteer Nigel Farage appeared at a Trump rally in Arizona. This was a surpassingly odd choice, since there’s scant evidence that EU agricultural tariffs were a primary motivator of swing voters in Scottsdale. In any case, it would be hard to miss the connection between twin campaigns ostensibly launched against the globalist elite in the Anglosphere in the same year.
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…
It’s a sound bet that Biden, and most of the Democratic elite, had grave misgivings regarding Britain’s 2016 exit from the European Union. (So too, one might add, did a majority of the British governing class, both Labour and Tory.) But it strains credulity that a leader in the mold of Biden, elected on the promise of uniting his own divided nation, would regard 52 percent of the British public (the number that voted to quit the EU in the 2016 referendum) as speaking for the whole of Great Britain. The assumption that Biden is driven by some deep animosity to the U.K. is wholly without basis, which may help explain why Murray fails to give a single example of it.
Murray does not stop there, alas. He proceeds to suggest that the humiliated Trump is “a great friend of the U.K.” This is not merely speculative and provocative; it is something close to lunacy. To refute the assertion that Donald Trump is a friend of the British people, one need not show that he is the antithesis of the Victorian virtues. One need not prove that he is completely ignorant of, and indifferent to, the works of the British empire. It is not even necessary to show that his upper lip is distinctly soft, or that he has adopted the label of those isolationists who wished to abandon Britain in its lonely fight against the Luftwaffe.
It is simply a category error to think that Trump, a pathological narcissist, is even capable of affection or allegiance of this sort. This has been the blind spot of the vast majority of Trump’s apologists from the beginning, presuming that this kind of man could ever be a different kind of leader. As Trump will ever make plain, he can serve no cause greater than himself because he feels no passion—and has no competence—for principle beyond self-interest.
Murray ignores the crushing weight of this contrary evidence and instead notes a technical point about Trump’s years-long support for what Murray dubs a “generous” trade deal with Brexit Britain, concluding that “he is on our side.” But it’s not remotely true that Trump was keen to help our British friends in their hour of need. Murray neglects to mention that before negotiating a U.S.-U.K. free trade pact, Trump slapped Britain with erroneous national-security tariffs on steel and aluminum, as Thomas Wright noted in Politico. The Trump administration also hinted that Britain may have to unravel key features of its overwhelmingly popular National Health Service in exchange for inking a deal. As Trump enters the final weeks of his administration, it’s a credulous fool who thinks there’s a shadow of a chance for a trade deal to be finalized in between outrageous tweets heaping scorn on American democracy and drawing up pardons, including perhaps his own.
None of this is to say that President Biden will make a uniformly excellent steward of U.S. foreign policy. Many of Trump’s sins of commission will be repudiated but many of Obama’s sins of omission will likely be replicated. One gets the impression that Biden understands that after years of scorn and malign neglect, Europeans and Britons must be enjoined to come in from the cold. NATO, and the principle of collective security that undergirds it, will receive the respect they deserve. The European Union will not be treated as a foe of the United States. Biden may even have learned from experience that the dangers of unchecked Russian adventurism demand a firm American response at the head of a broad European alliance. No more ill-fated resets with Vladimir Putin, much less the kind of kowtowing to which the Russian despot has become accustomed.
This would all accord with Biden’s larger dispensation to promote American principles and Western unity. The return of great power competition has reignited the antique struggle between democracy and autocracy, and Biden is patently opposed to American neutrality in this contest. This posture should give heart to depressed democracies around the world, although whether Asian democracies have cause for relief will be measured by the seriousness of Washington’s strategy toward China, which remains an open question.
And there’s considerable reason for pessimism about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. It is this realm where the Obama administration most obviously shirked its duties to advance American interests and principles. Its abdication of responsibility here was founded on a deeply flawed analysis of security and progress that would garner high marks at the American University of Beirut, but which fared poorly against the harsh realities of the region. Obama’s casual indifference to murderous Iranian expansionism was paired with steely indifference to the cause of Iranian dissidents protesting a fraudulent election put on display by a moribund theocracy. The distaste for imperial policing led the Obama administration to abort the Iraq expedition before consensual government and a monopoly on force had taken hold in Baghdad, which precipitated the return of Islamist violence in the guise of ISIS. The Syrian war broke out late in Obama’s first term, and continued every day of his second term without a modicum of American power being brought to bear to suspend that vast butchery. The Obama administration’s acute opposition to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was not attended by any great efforts to assuage Israeli fears.
And so, although Biden will almost certainly reinvigorate the wounded Western alliance, he may well fail to revive America’s diminished position in the Middle East. The high economic and political and strategic stakes of America’s growing competition with China require that the American president act in a concerted manner to build up situations of strength in East Asia. Toward this end, Biden should follow his instinct to shore up America’s security alliances and economic partnerships. Both have suffered sustained structural damage, and repairing them will require a delicate combination of intelligence and imagination as well as spine and sinew.
In February 1941, Henry Luce famously took to the pages of Life to declare the birth of “the American century.” His editorial, which today is more often cited than actually read, had two main objectives. In the near term, it called upon the United States to abandon its isolationism and join the battle against the Axis powers. In the longer term, it summoned the United States to supplant Britain as the chief guarantor of world order and build an international system conducive to “American principles.”
Eighty years later, the United States has broadly fulfilled the role Luce imagined for it. In the three decades since the end of the Cold War, however, Americans have demonstrated rising ambivalence about the continued viability (and in some cases morality) of this role. Despite a brief exception after September 11, 2001 when the United States deployed its power to the Hindu Kush and Mesopotamia with the broad assent of the American public, it has grown to resemble—psychologically if not materially—the very sort of weary titan that Britain was after its ferocious confrontation with Hitler.
Donald Trump has been the ugliest possible manifestation of this growing American diffidence and timidity. His predecessor was a far more elegant and palatable expression of an America that was no longer keenly interested in the business of upholding the liberal world order. But whereas Barack Obama generally preferred to conceal American retrenchment with paeans to American global leadership, Trump has been a gratuitous flouter of American-established norms without any pretense of hypocrisy. Obama promised “nation-building at home,” signaling to friend and foe alike that they would have to find their way in a world devoid of American leadership. Trump offered a program of “America First” that treated trusted allies with bitter contempt and sworn adversaries with obsequious praise—the love letters Trump exchanged with Kim Jong-un will live in infamy.
Undoing the damage done to the country’s elaborately constructed and long-maintained system of alliances will be the first order of business for the incoming Biden administration. America’s allies will be watching closely to ascertain whether Biden’s promise of improved alliance-maintenance is more than mere rhetoric. In light of Biden’s long-honed political instincts, as well as the contemporary nature of the Democratic party, the results will probably be mixed. But this will stand in stark contrast to Trump’s performance, which has been almost uniformly dreadful.
Winston Churchill, to invoke another figure conservatives like to cite more than read nowadays, told a story about the man who received a telegram reporting the death of his mother-in-law and asking for instructions. The man telegraphed back: “Embalm, cremate, bury at sea. Take no chances.” Americans, Britons, and all who revere the liberal order ought to adopt a similar approach to the overdue end of the Trump presidency.


thebulwark--2020-11-10--Donald Trump’s Last (?) Big Lie

Donald Trump’s Last (?) Big Lie

America ’ s institutions have survived their most serious test since the Civil War , perhaps the Founding .
Under unprecedented conditions—a raging pandemic that kept millions of people from coming to the polls on election day—the nation has managed to conduct an election that appears at this point to have been free from foreign interference or fraud and which , when all the votes are counted , will likely have produced a clear and decisive result .
In addition to a historic number who participated in the process by casting their ballots , many thousands of ordinary citizens—Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure to count and certify every vote .
But at the same time , American self-government has suffered a grievous blow .
In a desperate attempt to salve his bruised ego and preserve his grip on political power , the president of the United States has launched a frontal attack on the most sacred feature of our democratic political system : free and fair elections .
In remarks to the nation from the White House and in a flurry of tweets , President Trump has made a series of baseless attacks on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing any evidence that a dark conspiracy of dishonest pollsters , “ fake news ” media , Wall Street bankers , corrupt officials , and crooked Democrats suppressed his support and mysteriously manufactured millions of ballots for his opponent .
Trump ’ s self-serving conclusion : “ If you count the legal votes , I easily win .
If you count the illegal votes , they can try to steal the election from us.
” If he believes he has been wronged , President Trump has the right to mount legal challenges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recount .
At this point , however , neither he nor his campaign has presented a scintilla of actual evidence to support his allegations .
But that has not prevented him from using his position and his authority to challenge the legitimacy not only of the results of this election but of the entire “ corrupt ” system that organized it .
The president ’ s allegations are profoundly dangerous and could serve to destabilize our entire system of government .
The ability to transfer power peacefully is a singular achievement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the confidence that people have in the fairness of the electoral system .
With millions of Trump ’ s followers believing his charges , that confidence has been placed in jeopardy , setting the stage for truly dangerous confrontations in the short term and potentially shattering much of the nation ’ s faith in our system of government over the longer term .
Aware of the risk , a few Republican political leaders have begun to speak out , notably Maryland Governor Larry Hogan , Utah Senator Mitt Romney , and Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sasse has broken ranks with many of his colleagues by acknowledging Biden as the president-elect ; former president George W. Bush has , too , in a statement calling the election “ fundamentally fair ” and saying “ its outcome is clear.
” Most Republican politicians have , so far , retreated into cowardly silence .
But some have chimed in to amplify Trump ’ s poisonous charges .
Ted Cruz , for one , no doubt eager to position himself for his own presidential run , has warned of Democratic efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ” but the millions of people who voted for him .
Once the process has played out , there is little doubt that Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States .
But he , and the country , will face a serious problem .
While some may be repelled by Trump ’ s petulant refusal to accept defeat , many of his followers will accept his complaints as gospel , rejecting the legitimacy not only of this election but of any future contest that produces a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing various “ intellectual ” supporters of Trump doubling down on his charges of fraud .
Sohrab Ahmari , editorial page editor of the New York Post , speaks of the coming Biden administration as a “ terrifying new regime , ” and likens it to dictator Alexander Lukashenko ’ s Belarus , where recent elections were brazenly stolen .
Victor Davis Hanson , a military historian and a Hoover Institution fellow , says darkly of the vote count that there were “ anomalies that no one can explain.
” The various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Joe Biden worked knowingly as “ voter suppressionists , ” Hanson says , and “ we feel tonight that if we voted for Donald Trump , we ’ re living in a Third World Country.
” Roger Kimball , editor of the New Criterion and Encounter Books , sees a vast conspiracy at work : “ The forces arrayed behind Biden knew that the whole bureaucracy of the state—the poll workers and postal workers in battleground states , for example—would be on board for Biden and would be carefully coached in deploying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as necessary , and skew the vote.
” It will be interesting to see both if such voices persist and if they continue to maintain a following .
The boorish playboy Donald Trump is as unlikely a figure as one can imagine to create a cult of personality that would so powerfully attract those supposedly devoted to the life of the mind .
But political power attracts intellectuals like moths to a flame .
Be that as it may , the larger question is how to begin to heal the damage that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior and begin to restore confidence in our electoral system .
One place to start is to do the very opposite of what Trump did in 2016 .
Following his victory , he appointed a few highly partisan supporters to a commission and ordered them to dig up evidence to support his claim that millions of illegal votes prevented him from winning a majority .
It found absolutely nothing and was quietly disbanded .
Biden should establish a genuinely independent , nonpartisan commission , including distinguished public figures as well as experts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be charged with carefully reviewing the conduct of the 2020 presidential election , examining every stage of the process and issuing a comprehensive report addressing the various charges that have been made by Trump and his supporters .
Where appropriate , the commission should also make recommendations for improvements in local , state , and federal procedures that will ensure not only that future elections are fair and free from any form of interference—as we have every reason to believe this one was—but that they are perceived to be so by as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should delude themselves into believing that such a commission , or any other short-term fix , can in itself come close to restoring confidence in our institutions or a sense of proportion and common purpose to our politics .
But in a world in which the halves of the American population are separated into their own information bubbles , it would give a chance to at least begin to bridge the divide .
Like Pearl Harbor , the Kennedy assassination , or the 9/11 attacks , the workings of the 2020 election consists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high degree of precision .
Indeed , it will almost certainly be a good deal easier in this case to dispense with the “ alternative facts ” that the outgoing president and his supporters are now brewing up .
And as with these genuine national traumas , there will always be “ truthers ” who twist the facts beyond recognition , even if only on the fringe .
Those who are now busy concocting conspiracy theories to explain away the defeat of their idol and to preserve their place in the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Trump cult to cease and desist .
But it would be wrong to assume that all , or even most , of our fellow citizens who voted for the president will remain stubbornly impervious to evidence , credibly presented .
As dangerous as it is , Trump ’ s attempt to distort the truth about this election actually presents an opportunity to begin pushing back against the president ’ s four-year-long campaign to distort or invent facts and debase public discourse , to call his bluff and expose him yet again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump likely knows that his wild allegations will not stand up on close inspection and may well decide to back away from having them tested in a court of law .
At this point , his purpose in making these claims is not so much to hold on to office as to create a parallel reality in which he can continue to claim that he was robbed .
But he should not be permitted simply to walk away , leaving behind slanderous and damaging allegations about the fundamentals of our democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal logic of its own .
Already , even without the establishment of a fact-finding body , we are seeing major institutions , including Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets like Fox News , the New York Post , and the Wall Street Journal editorial page , begin to recalibrate , casting doubt on Trump ’ s allegations and accepting Biden as the legitimate president-elect .
If we have learned anything in the last four years it is that even in the age of social media , traditional media organizations retain the power to amplify misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capacity , and the responsibility , to help undo some of that damage .
Writing in the Wall Street Journal , it was none other than Karl Rove , someone who actually knows a thing or two about the mechanics of national elections , who pointed out that “ there are suspicious partisans across the spectrum who believe widespread election fraud is possible .
.
.
.
But stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie .
That isn ’ t going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grievous wounds on the American body politic , but the United States continues to exhibit the dynamism and the capacity for renewal that are its distinguishing hallmarks.The healing and reconciliation that Joe Biden has called for needs to begin at once , and debunking the false claims about the election is the place to start .

Aaron L. Friedberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld

America’s institutions have survived their most serious test since the Civil War, perhaps the Founding. Under unprecedented conditions—a raging pandemic that kept millions of people from coming to the polls on election day—the nation has managed to conduct an election that appears at this point to have been free from foreign interference or fraud and which, when all the votes are counted, will likely have produced a clear and decisive result.
In addition to a historic number who participated in the process by casting their ballots, many thousands of ordinary citizens—Republicans, Democrats and independents—worked tirelessly and under enormous pressure to count and certify every vote.
The system worked.
But at the same time, American self-government has suffered a grievous blow. In a desperate attempt to salve his bruised ego and preserve his grip on political power, the president of the United States has launched a frontal attack on the most sacred feature of our democratic political system: free and fair elections.
In remarks to the nation from the White House and in a flurry of tweets, President Trump has made a series of baseless attacks on the integrity of the election, claiming without providing any evidence that a dark conspiracy of dishonest pollsters, “fake news” media, Wall Street bankers, corrupt officials, and crooked Democrats suppressed his support and mysteriously manufactured millions of ballots for his opponent. Trump’s self-serving conclusion: “If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.”
If he believes he has been wronged, President Trump has the right to mount legal challenges and, in some cases, to demand a recount. At this point, however, neither he nor his campaign has presented a scintilla of actual evidence to support his allegations. But that has not prevented him from using his position and his authority to challenge the legitimacy not only of the results of this election but of the entire “corrupt” system that organized it.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The president’s allegations are profoundly dangerous and could serve to destabilize our entire system of government. The ability to transfer power peacefully is a singular achievement of our political order. Its success depends on the confidence that people have in the fairness of the electoral system. With millions of Trump’s followers believing his charges, that confidence has been placed in jeopardy, setting the stage for truly dangerous confrontations in the short term and potentially shattering much of the nation’s faith in our system of government over the longer term.
Aware of the risk, a few Republican political leaders have begun to speak out, notably Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, Utah Senator Mitt Romney, and Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse has broken ranks with many of his colleagues by acknowledging Biden as the president-elect; former president George W. Bush has, too, in a statement calling the election “fundamentally fair” and saying “its outcome is clear.” Most Republican politicians have, so far, retreated into cowardly silence. But some have chimed in to amplify Trump’s poisonous charges. Ted Cruz, for one, no doubt eager to position himself for his own presidential run, has warned of Democratic efforts to “steal the election not just from the president” but the millions of people who voted for him.
Once the process has played out, there is little doubt that Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States. But he, and the country, will face a serious problem. While some may be repelled by Trump’s petulant refusal to accept defeat, many of his followers will accept his complaints as gospel, rejecting the legitimacy not only of this election but of any future contest that produces a result they do not like.
Already we are seeing various “intellectual” supporters of Trump doubling down on his charges of fraud. Sohrab Ahmari, editorial page editor of the New York Post, speaks of the coming Biden administration as a “terrifying new regime,” and likens it to dictator Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus, where recent elections were brazenly stolen.
Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and a Hoover Institution fellow, says darkly of the vote count that there were “anomalies that no one can explain.” The various pollsters who predicted a blue tidal wave for Joe Biden worked knowingly as “voter suppressionists,” Hanson says, and “we feel tonight that if we voted for Donald Trump, we’re living in a Third World Country.”
Roger Kimball, editor of the New Criterion and Encounter Books, sees a vast conspiracy at work: “The forces arrayed behind Biden knew that the whole bureaucracy of the state—the poll workers and postal workers in battleground states, for example—would be on board for Biden and would be carefully coached in deploying techniques to manufacture or suppress ballots, as necessary, and skew the vote.”
It will be interesting to see both if such voices persist and if they continue to maintain a following. The boorish playboy Donald Trump is as unlikely a figure as one can imagine to create a cult of personality that would so powerfully attract those supposedly devoted to the life of the mind. But political power attracts intellectuals like moths to a flame.
Be that as it may, the larger question is how to begin to heal the damage that has been done by Trump’s reckless behavior and begin to restore confidence in our electoral system. One place to start is to do the very opposite of what Trump did in 2016. Following his victory, he appointed a few highly partisan supporters to a commission and ordered them to dig up evidence to support his claim that millions of illegal votes prevented him from winning a majority. It found absolutely nothing and was quietly disbanded.
Biden should establish a genuinely independent, nonpartisan commission, including distinguished public figures as well as experts on election laws and procedures. The commission should be charged with carefully reviewing the conduct of the 2020 presidential election, examining every stage of the process and issuing a comprehensive report addressing the various charges that have been made by Trump and his supporters. Where appropriate, the commission should also make recommendations for improvements in local, state, and federal procedures that will ensure not only that future elections are fair and free from any form of interference—as we have every reason to believe this one was—but that they are perceived to be so by as many people as possible.
No one should delude themselves into believing that such a commission, or any other short-term fix, can in itself come close to restoring confidence in our institutions or a sense of proportion and common purpose to our politics. But in a world in which the halves of the American population are separated into their own information bubbles, it would give a chance to at least begin to bridge the divide.
Like Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, or the 9/11 attacks, the workings of the 2020 election consist of facts that can be established to a high degree of precision. Indeed, it will almost certainly be a good deal easier in this case to dispense with the “alternative facts” that the outgoing president and his supporters are now brewing up. And as with these genuine national traumas, there will always be “truthers” who twist the facts beyond recognition, even if only on the fringe. Those who are now busy concocting conspiracy theories to explain away the defeat of their idol and to preserve their place in the public eye may well be too heavily invested in the Trump cult to cease and desist. But it would be wrong to assume that all, or even most, of our fellow citizens who voted for the president will remain stubbornly impervious to evidence, credibly presented.
As dangerous as it is, Trump’s attempt to distort the truth about this election actually presents an opportunity to begin pushing back against the president’s four-year-long campaign to distort or invent facts and debase public discourse, to call his bluff and expose him yet again as the serial liar that he is. Trump likely knows that his wild allegations will not stand up on close inspection and may well decide to back away from having them tested in a court of law. At this point, his purpose in making these claims is not so much to hold on to office as to create a parallel reality in which he can continue to claim that he was robbed. But he should not be permitted simply to walk away, leaving behind slanderous and damaging allegations about the fundamentals of our democracy.
Fortunately, truth still has a powerful internal logic of its own. Already, even without the establishment of a fact-finding body, we are seeing major institutions, including Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets like Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, begin to recalibrate, casting doubt on Trump’s allegations and accepting Biden as the legitimate president-elect. If we have learned anything in the last four years it is that even in the age of social media, traditional media organizations retain the power to amplify misinformation and mistrust. But they also have the capacity, and the responsibility, to help undo some of that damage.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, it was none other than Karl Rove, someone who actually knows a thing or two about the mechanics of national elections, who pointed out that “there are suspicious partisans across the spectrum who believe widespread election fraud is possible. . . . But stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie. That isn’t going to happen.”
Trump may have inflicted grievous wounds on the American body politic, but the United States continues to exhibit the dynamism and the capacity for renewal that are its distinguishing hallmarks.The healing and reconciliation that Joe Biden has called for needs to begin at once, and debunking the false claims about the election is the place to start.


Be Alarmed

I hope I am over wary ; but if I am not , there is , even now , something of ill-omen amongst us .
I know , I know .
Donald Trump is a petulant child , and congressional Republicans are just humoring him .
The Four Seasons Total Landscaping fiasco is an appropriate symbol of his shambolic efforts to contest the election results .
The firing of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is a spiteful but basically insignificant gesture on the president ’ s way out the door .
And Donald Trump can ’ t steal the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state or federal courts of ridiculous arguments .
He ’ d have to flip not one , but three states .
And state legislative leaders have shown no interest in the faux-originalist argument that they can ignore the voters of their states ( and the laws of their states ) and appoint their own slate of electors .
So it ’ s all annoying ; it ’ s even reprehensible .
But it ’ s not really threatening .
I think that view is probably correct .
But what if the demagoguery about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prerogatives of state legislatures is repeated over and over for four weeks by Trump and his surrogates , and isn ’ t refuted by many , if any , prominent conservatives and Republicans ?
And what do we make of Mitch McConnell refusing to acknowledge the election results today ?
And of the two Georgia Republican senators attacking their ( Republican ) secretary of state , with no basis in fact ?
And of the Republican governor of Georgia echoing those attacks ?
And of Attorney General Bill Barr announcing a Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations ” ( even , apparently , if no evidence ) of election irregularities ?
Are we 100 percent certain this doesn ’ t soften the ground enough so that what seems almost unthinkable now becomes thinkable ?
Are we 100 percent certain the state legislature in , say , Georgia , won ’ t start considering things that now seem outside the realm of the possible ?
And if the unthinkable actually happens in Georgia , are we certain that it could not then happen in Wisconsin ?
And Pennsylvania ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing of Defense Secretary Esper is just a matter of spite ?
Esper is most notable for having come out and said that the military would not intervene in domestic affairs at the behest of the president .
Perhaps the new acting secretary of defense might take a different view .
And maybe there will be more firings .
Perhaps CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Chris Wray will be pushed out .
You could talk yourself around to dismissing such moves , too .
You could tell yourself they wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it totally outside the realm of the possible that , with more compliant figures in charge of these parts of the government , “ information ” might be revealed or plots “ discovered ” that help legitimize not allowing the process to move forward to an Electoral College vote that would yield power to Joe Biden ?
It ’ s probably outside the realm of the possible .
Probably 99 percent outside .
If none of this happens—and again , it ’ s likely not to—those of us who are willing to entertain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fine .
No one will be happier than me if this all proves a false alarm .
If it ’ s just the Keystone Trumps firing up the base and causing mayhem on their way to launching Trump TV—great .
But we need not stand around speculating about alarms and alarm systems .
We have agency .
If prominent Republicans and influential conservatives take the threat seriously , and speak and act against it , they can harden our institutional and civic defenses against any such threat .
A little alarmism in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Complacency in the defense of democracy is no virtue .

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen amongst us.
—Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838
I know, I know. Donald Trump is a petulant child, and congressional Republicans are just humoring him. The Four Seasons Total Landscaping fiasco is an appropriate symbol of his shambolic efforts to contest the election results. The firing of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is a spiteful but basically insignificant gesture on the president’s way out the door.
And Donald Trump can’t steal the election. He’d have to convince state or federal courts of ridiculous arguments. He’d have to flip not one, but three states. And state legislative leaders have shown no interest in the faux-originalist argument that they can ignore the voters of their states (and the laws of their states) and appoint their own slate of electors.
So it’s all annoying; it’s even reprehensible. But it’s not really threatening.
I think that view is probably correct.
Probably.
But.
But what if the demagoguery about election fraud and the sophistry about the prerogatives of state legislatures is repeated over and over for four weeks by Trump and his surrogates, and isn’t refuted by many, if any, prominent conservatives and Republicans?
And what do we make of Mitch McConnell refusing to acknowledge the election results today? And of the two Georgia Republican senators attacking their (Republican) secretary of state, with no basis in fact? And of the Republican governor of Georgia echoing those attacks? And of Attorney General Bill Barr announcing a Justice Department willingness to investigate if there are “allegations” (even, apparently, if no evidence) of election irregularities?
Are we 100 percent certain this doesn’t soften the ground enough so that what seems almost unthinkable now becomes thinkable? Are we 100 percent certain the state legislature in, say, Georgia, won’t start considering things that now seem outside the realm of the possible? And if the unthinkable actually happens in Georgia, are we certain that it could not then happen in Wisconsin? And Pennsylvania?
And are we 100 percent certain that the firing of Defense Secretary Esper is just a matter of spite?
Esper is most notable for having come out and said that the military would not intervene in domestic affairs at the behest of the president. Perhaps the new acting secretary of defense might take a different view.
And maybe there will be more firings. Perhaps CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Chris Wray will be pushed out.
You could talk yourself around to dismissing such moves, too. You could tell yourself they wouldn’t really mean much.
But is it totally outside the realm of the possible that, with more compliant figures in charge of these parts of the government, “information” might be revealed or plots “discovered” that help legitimize not allowing the process to move forward to an Electoral College vote that would yield power to Joe Biden?
It’s probably outside the realm of the possible. Probably 99 percent outside.
But not 100 percent.
If none of this happens—and again, it’s likely not to—those of us who are willing to entertain such concerns will be mocked for alarmism.
Fine. No one will be happier than me if this all proves a false alarm. If it’s just the Keystone Trumps firing up the base and causing mayhem on their way to launching Trump TV—great.
But we need not stand around speculating about alarms and alarm systems. We have agency. If prominent Republicans and influential conservatives take the threat seriously, and speak and act against it, they can harden our institutional and civic defenses against any such threat.
A little alarmism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Complacency in the defense of democracy is no virtue.


thebulwark--2020-11-10--Bill Barr’s Election Memo: Justice Delayed

Attorney General Barr ’ s new memo , on Department of Justice investigations of alleged misconduct in the elections , sends a message .
Actually , it sends two messages .
And that is the problem .
Yesterday , the attorney general issued a memo to the FBI director , the DOJ ’ s leaders in Washington , and the U.S. attorneys responsible for federal prosecution across the country .
The memo , titled “ Post-Voting Election Irregularity Inquiries , ” set general guidelines for investigations into “ substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.
” It certainly pleased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Breitbart.com ’ s enthusiastic article about it .
( On Tuesday , Trump retweeted Breitbart ’ s reiteration : “ Let ’ s Roll.
” ) Others were less enthused .
Richard Pilger , director of the DOJ ’ s electoral crimes branch , resigned in protest : “ Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications , ” he wrote , “ and in accord with the best tradition of the John C. Keeney Award for Exceptional Integrity and Professionalism ( my most cherished Departmental recognition ) , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of the Election Crimes Branch.
” Mr. Pilger , who not only worked on U.S. electoral crimes but also previously worked on U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Georgia—the former Soviet state , not the American one—clearly did not like what he saw in the memo .
Reading Barr ’ s memo , however , one finds no shortage of caveats and constraints .
The memo ’ s defenders surely will emphasize them , and with good reason .
The attorney general does not explicitly endorse any of the scattered , dubious allegations being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters ; indeed , the memo states that “ nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.
” Moreover , the memo admits that it would be unlikely for any alleged electoral misconduct , if even true , to rise to a level justifying investigation before the election process has completely finished : “ most allegations of purported election misconduct are of such a scale that they would not impact the outcome of an election.
” And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ substantial ” allegations of “ voting and vote tabulation irregularities ” ; only if “ there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that , if true , could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.
” Surely questions will be asked about what qualifies as “ apparently-credible ” allegations , and Barr leaves much discretion in the hands of individual prosecutors ( “ U.S .
Attorneys maintain their inherent authority to conduct inquiries and investigations as they deem appropriate ” ) .
But the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to phrase this memo carefully , limiting its authorization with details and caveats .
Anyone who reads this memo from start to finish will see these nuances .
But what about the people who don ’ t read the memo—or , more specifically , who only read its top lines , and the news coverage or Facebook posts or tweets that it spurs ?
Those audiences surely will interpret this memo quite differently .
( Some , of course , already have . )
The mere fact that the attorney general has issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lending credence to the notion that any particular investigations are warranted already .
The attorney general doesn ’ t say so , but he doesn ’ t say otherwise .
Indeed , his memo ’ s emphasis of the importance of pursuing only “ substantial ” allegations of misconduct is followed by a vague mention that “ I have already ” authorized investigations “ in specific instances , ” leading the public only to wonder what these “ substantial ” allegations might be .
Furthermore , the memo ’ s stated premise points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a paean to “ the strength of our democracy , ” Barr warns that “ it is imperative that the American people can trust that our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.
” And he closes on a similar note , “ emphasiz [ ing ] the need to timely and appropriately address allegations of voting irregularities ” so that the American people “ can have full confidence in the results of our elections.
” Clearly Barr ’ s memo is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aftermath of Joe Biden ’ s election , suddenly feel less confidence in the election itself .
Beginning , of course , with the president himself .
The president surely has not and will not read the full two-page memo , replete with caveats and nuance .
But he might well read the memo ’ s subject line , presented in all caps and underlined : “ .
” It is a striking title , given the memo ’ s nuanced substance .
With all of its caveats and limitations , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prohibiting Unsubstantiated Election Inquiries , ” or ( to borrow a phrase from the memo ) “ The Justice Department ’ s Absolute Commitment to Fairness , Neutrality , and Non-Partisanship.
” But the memo ’ s author chose very different title , one that puts “ ELECTION IRREGULARITY ” front and center .
Over the last two years , Attorney General Barr ’ s words and actions have often been cast unfairly , in the worst possible light .
A cloud of doubt and suspicion immediately surrounds everything he does .
Sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ’ s manhandling of protesters outside Lafayette Square in June .
Sometimes he is right , as in his resistance to congressional encroachment upon the Justice Department .
And often he just does what lawyers usually do : obscure simple points with complicated caveats , digressions , and hedges .
There are times when the attorney general is much more blunt , much less ambivalent : his Notre Dame speech defending religious liberty and denouncing “ moral chaos ” in America today ; his Federalist Society speech denouncing Congress ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general .
No one could mistake the messages he was sending on those occasions .
But the week after the election , with so many people trying to delegitimize the clear outcome , was not such an occasion .
The attorney general published a memo that sent very different messages to different people .
Perhaps the DOJ will someday issue a clearer statement , rebuking the glib conspiracy theories and those who are now reveling in them .
But until then , Justice delayed will be justice denied .

Attorney General Barr’s new memo, on Department of Justice investigations of alleged misconduct in the elections, sends a message. Actually, it sends two messages. And that is the problem.
Yesterday, the attorney general issued a memo to the FBI director, the DOJ’s leaders in Washington, and the U.S. attorneys responsible for federal prosecution across the country. The memo, titled “Post-Voting Election Irregularity Inquiries,” set general guidelines for investigations into “substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.” It certainly pleased President Trump, who tweeted a link to Breitbart.com’s enthusiastic article about it. (On Tuesday, Trump retweeted Breitbart’s reiteration: “Let’s Roll.”)
Others were less enthused. Richard Pilger, director of the DOJ’s electoral crimes branch, resigned in protest: “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” he wrote, “and in accord with the best tradition of the John C. Keeney Award for Exceptional Integrity and Professionalism (my most cherished Departmental recognition), I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of the Election Crimes Branch.” Mr. Pilger, who not only worked on U.S. electoral crimes but also previously worked on U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Georgia—the former Soviet state, not the American one—clearly did not like what he saw in the memo.
Reading Barr’s memo, however, one finds no shortage of caveats and constraints. The memo’s defenders surely will emphasize them, and with good reason. The attorney general does not explicitly endorse any of the scattered, dubious allegations being thrown around by President Trump and his supporters; indeed, the memo states that “nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.” Moreover, the memo admits that it would be unlikely for any alleged electoral misconduct, if even true, to rise to a level justifying investigation before the election process has completely finished: “most allegations of purported election misconduct are of such a scale that they would not impact the outcome of an election.”
And so the Barr memo only authorizes investigations of “substantial” allegations of “voting and vote tabulation irregularities”; only if “there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” Surely questions will be asked about what qualifies as “apparently-credible” allegations, and Barr leaves much discretion in the hands of individual prosecutors (“U.S. Attorneys maintain their inherent authority to conduct inquiries and investigations as they deem appropriate”). But the attorney general’s office clearly took great pains to phrase this memo carefully, limiting its authorization with details and caveats. Anyone who reads this memo from start to finish will see these nuances.
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 what about the people who don’t read the memo—or, more specifically, who only read its top lines, and the news coverage or Facebook posts or tweets that it spurs? Those audiences surely will interpret this memo quite differently. (Some, of course, already have.) The mere fact that the attorney general has issued it will be taken by many as lending credence to the notion that any particular investigations are warranted already. The attorney general doesn’t say so, but he doesn’t say otherwise. Indeed, his memo’s emphasis of the importance of pursuing only “substantial” allegations of misconduct is followed by a vague mention that “I have already” authorized investigations “in specific instances,” leading the public only to wonder what these “substantial” allegations might be.
Furthermore, the memo’s stated premise points in a particular direction. After opening with a paean to “the strength of our democracy,” Barr warns that “it is imperative that the American people can trust that our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.” And he closes on a similar note, “emphasiz[ing] the need to timely and appropriately address allegations of voting irregularities” so that the American people “can have full confidence in the results of our elections.” Clearly Barr’s memo is a response to those who, in the aftermath of Joe Biden’s election, suddenly feel less confidence in the election itself.
Beginning, of course, with the president himself. The president surely has not and will not read the full two-page memo, replete with caveats and nuance. But he might well read the memo’s subject line, presented in all caps and underlined: “ POST-VOTING ELECTION IRREGULARITY INQUIRIES .”
It is a striking title, given the memo’s nuanced substance. With all of its caveats and limitations, the memo could rightly have been titled “Prohibiting Unsubstantiated Election Inquiries,” or (to borrow a phrase from the memo) “The Justice Department’s Absolute Commitment to Fairness, Neutrality, and Non-Partisanship.” But the memo’s author chose very different title, one that puts “ELECTION IRREGULARITY” front and center.
Over the last two years, Attorney General Barr’s words and actions have often been cast unfairly, in the worst possible light. A cloud of doubt and suspicion immediately surrounds everything he does. Sometimes he is unequivocally wrong, as in the government’s manhandling of protesters outside Lafayette Square in June. Sometimes he is right, as in his resistance to congressional encroachment upon the Justice Department. And often he just does what lawyers usually do: obscure simple points with complicated caveats, digressions, and hedges.
There are times when the attorney general is much more blunt, much less ambivalent: his Notre Dame speech defending religious liberty and denouncing “moral chaos” in America today; his Federalist Society speech denouncing Congress’s overreaches and the anti-Trump “Resistance” in general. No one could mistake the messages he was sending on those occasions.
But the week after the election, with so many people trying to delegitimize the clear outcome, was not such an occasion. The attorney general published a memo that sent very different messages to different people. Perhaps the DOJ will someday issue a clearer statement, rebuking the glib conspiracy theories and those who are now reveling in them. But until then, Justice delayed will be justice denied.


thebulwark--2020-11-11--Trump’s Election Mess, in the Eyes of the World

The Monday before the U.S. election , November 2 , the State Department threatened to sanction Tanzanian officials responsible for “ interference in the election process ” in that country ’ s recent presidential and parliamentary votes , which were accompanied by violent reprisals against leaders of the opposition .
A week later , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed concerns about the election that had just taken place in Burma , especially “ the disqualification of candidates based on arbitrary application of citizenship and residency requirements , which prevent the realization of a more democratic and civilian government.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jokingly ( or not ? )
promised “ a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
” While the Secret Service has reportedly stepped up its protection of President-elect Joe Biden , other federal agencies are following President Trump ’ s lead in denying , or at least not acknowledging , the results of last week ’ s election .
The head of the General Services Administration is refusing to start the orderly transition process .
The White House budget office , instead of following the precedent of outgoing administrations and not preparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has instructed federal agencies to keep working on the next Trump budget , as if no election had taken place .
And of course the vast majority of congressional Republicans are either silent about or supportive of the president ’ s claim that he won the election .
I know , they don ’ t mean it .
The point of Trump ’ s last great conspiracy theory while in office consists in equal parts of ‘ owning the libs , ’ ramping up his fundraising machine , and creating a narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s future political brand .
Republicans are not plotting a fascist coup ; they are indulging Trump ’ s behavior because they are fear reprisals from the Republican base , which they expect to stay under the president ’ s spell .
But that does not mean that there will not be consequences .
Domestically , not recognizing the election ’ s results and blocking the access of Biden ’ s transition team to government departments will make slow and stymie the new administration ’ s start .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tit-for-tat , for which Democrats are bound to retaliate down the road .
The longer the president ’ s delusion is indulged , the harder it will be to eradicate the myth of a ‘ stolen election ’ from the minds of Trump ’ s most ardent supporters .
More significantly , the GOP ’ s behavior is a direct attack on America ’ s soft power and its standing in the world .
In 1998 , I lived as a teenager through one of the more tense transfers of power in post-Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party of the nationalist prime minister Vladimír Mečiar received a plurality of popular votes in the parliamentary election but the pro-Western opposition was able to secure a decisive majority of seats in parliament .
Mečiar had a track record of authoritarian practices , including the intimidation of political opponents with violence .
Yet once his parliamentary majority was gone , the transition was a matter of days .
Tearful , the departing prime minister waved and sang to his supporters in an evening broadcast and disappeared into irrelevance .
A key reason was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly the United States .
Under Mečiar , Slovakia was falling behind its neighbors in the accession process to NATO and to the European Union .
Local actors understood that a chaotic election or an attempted power grab by the incumbent prime minister would relegate the country to the Europe ’ s periphery for at least another decade .
The present moment feels different .
Like the rest of Eastern Europe , Slovakia has become a battleground for culture wars in which homegrown political extremists alongside Russian and Chinese propaganda depict American democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump era and its impending end could have provided a compelling counterexample—of robust political institutions that can easily withstand voters ’ decision to elevate a narcissist with no morality and a feeble intellect to the highest office in the land .
Unfortunately , the Republicans ’ decision to play along with Trump ’ s post-election shenanigans will make it difficult for the United States to regain the moral high ground from which it could effectively promote democratic governance overseas .
Worse yet , while Trump ’ s half-hearted efforts to thwart the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , similar attempts by more competent budding authoritarians overseas might not .
And when confronted , they will be right to point out that they are simply following the American example .
Anyone who expected Donald Trump to depart the presidency gracefully was naïve .
But let ’ s separate the president from his fellow Republicans : While Trump simply does not know any better , there are no good-faith explanations for the decision of Republicans to play along with the latest and by far the most damaging of his delusions .
Domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election ’ s result is unpatriotic and bound to leave lasting damage on our nation ’ s credibility around the world .
To my eyes—as an American by choice , one who was until recently bracing for a battle over the Republican party ’ s soul once Trump loses the election—this collective act of political arson alone is a sufficient reason to want to raze the current GOP to the ground .

The Monday before the U.S. election, November 2, the State Department threatened to sanction Tanzanian officials responsible for “interference in the election process” in that country’s recent presidential and parliamentary votes, which were accompanied by violent reprisals against leaders of the opposition.
A week later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed concerns about the election that had just taken place in Burma, especially “the disqualification of candidates based on arbitrary application of citizenship and residency requirements, which prevent the realization of a more democratic and civilian government.”
Yet yesterday the world watched as Pompeo jokingly (or not?) promised “a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” While the Secret Service has reportedly stepped up its protection of President-elect Joe Biden, other federal agencies are following President Trump’s lead in denying, or at least not acknowledging, the results of last week’s election. The head of the General Services Administration is refusing to start the orderly transition process. The White House budget office, instead of following the precedent of outgoing administrations and not preparing a budget proposal for the next year, has instructed federal agencies to keep working on the next Trump budget, as if no election had taken place. And of course the vast majority of congressional Republicans are either silent about or supportive of the president’s claim that he won the election.
I know, they don’t mean it. The point of Trump’s last great conspiracy theory while in office consists in equal parts of ‘owning the libs,’ ramping up his fundraising machine, and creating a narrative of victimhood that will be at heart of Trump’s future political brand. Republicans are not plotting a fascist coup; they are indulging Trump’s behavior because they are fear reprisals from the Republican base, which they expect to stay under the president’s spell.
But that does not mean that there will not be consequences. Domestically, not recognizing the election’s results and blocking the access of Biden’s transition team to government departments will stymie the new administration’s start. It is also a further escalation of the partisan tit-for-tat, for which Democrats are bound to retaliate down the road. The longer the president’s delusion is indulged, the harder it will be to eradicate the myth of a ‘stolen election’ from the minds of Trump’s most ardent supporters.
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…
More significantly, the GOP’s behavior is a direct attack on America’s soft power and its standing in the world.
In 1998, I lived as a teenager through one of the more tense transfers of power in post-Communist Eastern Europe. In Slovakia, the party of the nationalist prime minister Vladimír Mečiar received a plurality of popular votes in the parliamentary election but the pro-Western opposition was able to secure a decisive majority of seats in parliament. Mečiar had a track record of authoritarian practices, including the intimidation of political opponents with violence.
Yet once his parliamentary majority was gone, the transition was a matter of days. Tearful, the departing prime minister waved and sang to his supporters in an evening broadcast and disappeared into irrelevance. A key reason was the benign influence of the West, particularly the United States. Under Mečiar, Slovakia was falling behind its neighbors in the accession process to NATO and to the European Union. Local actors understood that a chaotic election or an attempted power grab by the incumbent prime minister would relegate the country to the Europe’s periphery for at least another decade.
The present moment feels different. Like the rest of Eastern Europe, Slovakia has become a battleground for culture wars in which homegrown political extremists alongside Russian and Chinese propaganda depict American democracy as a sham. Paradoxically, the Trump era and its impending end could have provided a compelling counterexample—of robust political institutions that can easily withstand voters’ decision to elevate a narcissist with no morality and a feeble intellect to the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the Republicans’ decision to play along with Trump’s post-election shenanigans will make it difficult for the United States to regain the moral high ground from which it could effectively promote democratic governance overseas.
Worse yet, while Trump’s half-hearted efforts to thwart the election’s result are bound to fail, similar attempts by more competent budding authoritarians overseas might not. And when confronted, they will be right to point out that they are simply following the American example.
Anyone who expected Donald Trump to depart the presidency gracefully was naïve. But let’s separate the president from his fellow Republicans: While Trump simply does not know any better, there are no good-faith explanations for the decision of Republicans to play along with the latest and by far the most damaging of his delusions. Domestic repercussions aside, the rhetorical defiance of the election’s result is unpatriotic and bound to leave lasting damage on our nation’s credibility around the world. To my eyes—as an American by choice, one who was until recently bracing for a battle over the Republican party’s soul once Trump loses the election—this collective act of political arson alone is a sufficient reason to want to raze the current GOP to the ground.