alternet--2020-10-19--The birth of American supremacy — and the carefully constructed myth of 'isolationism'

The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten bestselling books , especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump 's haphazard and continuously shifting orbit .
With metronomic regularity , such gossipy volumes appear , make a splash , and almost as quickly vanish , leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond .
Remember when Michael Wolff 's Fire and Fury : Inside the Trump White House was all the rage ?
It 's now available in hardcover for $ 0.99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Higher Loyalty also sells for a penny less than a buck .
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman 's `` insider 's account '' of her short-lived tenure in that very White House .
For the same price , you can acquire Sean Spicer 's memoir as Trump 's press secretary , Anthony Scaramucci 's rendering of his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director , and Corey Lewandowski 's `` inside story '' of the 2016 presidential campaign .
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton , Michael Cohen , Mary Trump , and that journalistic amaneusis Bob Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices .
All that said , even in these dismal times genuinely important books do occasionally make their appearance .
My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one .
It 's called Tomorrow , the World : The Birth of U.S .
Global Supremacy and if you 'll forgive me for being direct , you really ought to read it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I are co-founders of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , a small Washington , D.C.-based think tank .
That Quincy refers to John Quincy Adams who , as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago , warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad `` in search of monsters to destroy . ''
Were the United States to do so , Adams predicted , its defining trait -- its very essence -- `` would insensibly change from liberty to force . ''
By resorting to force , America `` might become the dictatress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but `` she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit . ''
While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities , it remains apt .
A privileged man of his times , Adams took it for granted that a WASP male elite was meant to run the country .
Women were to occupy their own separate sphere .
And while he would eventually become an ardent opponent of slavery , in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either .
His immediate priority as secretary of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity .
That meant avoiding unnecessary trouble .
We had already had our revolution .
In his view , it was n't this country 's purpose to promote revolution elsewhere or to dictate history 's future course .
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks : the Greatest Of All Time .
As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians , he brought to maturity a pragmatic tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Washington , Jefferson , and Madison .
That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent , avid commercial engagement , and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad .
Adhering to such a template , the United States had , by the beginning of the twentieth century , become the wealthiest , most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans spoiled the party .
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914 and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent generation of WASPs concluded .
This is where Wertheim takes up the story .
Prompted by the German army 's lightning victory in the battle of France in May and June 1940 , members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy paradigm , one he describes as pursuing `` dominance in the name of internationalism , '' with U.S. military supremacy deemed `` the prerequisite of a decent world . ''
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton , wrote columns for leading New York newspapers , staffed Henry Luce 's Time-Life press empire , and distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes ( grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among them ) .
Most importantly , just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) .
As such , they had a direct line to the State Department , which in those days actually played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
While Tomorrow , The World is not a long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a tour de force .
In it , Wertheim describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France .
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves castigated as `` isolationists , '' a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness .
Those favoring armed intervention , meanwhile , became `` internationalists , '' a term connoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework , which still warns against the bugaboo of `` isolationism '' that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising `` global leadership . ''
Wertheim persuasively describes the `` turn '' toward militarized globalism engineered from above by that self-selected , unelected crew .
Crucially , their efforts achieved success prior to Pearl Harbor .
The Japanese attack of December 7 , 1941 , may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war , but the essential transformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what it meant .
Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending , a vast network of foreign bases stretching across the globe , a penchant for armed intervention abroad , a sprawling `` national security '' apparatus , and a politically subversive arms industry -- would only become apparent in the years ahead .
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully constructed myth , he does so with devastating effect .
Most of all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long as the phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin , all is permitted . ''
Contained within that all is a cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations , successes and failures , notable achievements and immense tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed .
While beyond the scope of Wertheim 's book , casting the Cold War as a de facto extension of the war against Nazi Germany , with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy establishment .
At the outset of World War II , ominous changes in the global distribution of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy .
Today , fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power -- did someone say `` the rise of China '' ?
-- are once again occurring right before our eyes .
Yet the foreign-policy establishment 's response is simply to double down .
So , even now , staggering levels of military spending , a vast network of foreign bases , a penchant for armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security '' apparatus , and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S. policy .
And even now , the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and expedient amnesia , as well as a means to enforce discipline .
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster .
Yet implicit in Tomorrow , The World is this question : If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a hitherto successful policy paradigm , then why have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the present century not produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today ?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army 's sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht 's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11 .
From a tactical or operational perspective , many will find such a comparison unpersuasive .
After all , the present-day armed forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat , nor is the government of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940 .
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes .
Time and again since 9/11 , whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or lesser theaters of conflict , the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes for which it went to war .
From a strategic and political perspective , therefore , the comparison with France is instructive , even if failure need not entail abject surrender .
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo ( including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were counting on that country 's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression once and for all .
Defeat came as a profound shock .
Similarly , after the Cold War , most Americans ( and various beneficiaries of a supposed Pax Americana ) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly global status quo .
Instead , the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of `` endless wars '' that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion .
Crucially , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the `` turn '' that Wertheim describes has occurred .
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump 's promise to put `` America First '' might credit him with attempting such a turn .
In practice , however , his incompetence and inconsistency , not to mention his naked dishonesty , produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags .
Threats of `` fire and fury '' alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ( `` we fell in love '' ) .
Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement , massively rolled back environmental regulations domestically , and then took credit for providing Americans with `` the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet . ''
Little of this was to be taken seriously .
Trump 's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic equivalent of Mulligan stew .
Examine the contents closely enough and you 'll be able to find just about anything .
Yet taken as a whole , the concoction falls well short of being nutritious , much less appetizing .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire national security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump 's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy .
Every component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post yearns for that moment .
To a very considerable degree , a Biden presidency will satisfy that yearning .
Nothing if not a creature of the establishment , Biden himself will conform to its requirements .
For proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in favor of invading Iraq in 2003 .
( No isolationist he . )
Count on a Biden administration , therefore , to perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices .
As Peter Beinart puts it , `` When it comes to defense , a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency , and that 's going to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers . ''
Biden will increase the Pentagon budget , keep U.S. troops in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
The United States will remain the world 's number-one arms merchant , accelerate efforts to militarize outer space , and continue the ongoing modernization of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force .
Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the `` inside . ''
Above all , Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership .
`` The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and autocracy created the free world .
But this contest does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will define our future , as well . ''
Those uplifting sentiments are , of course , his from a recent Foreign Affairs essay .
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things up , then Biden is probably your kind of guy .
Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of `` dominance in the name of internationalism '' will resume .
And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note , that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the White House .
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of evidence showing that it 's not working to the benefit of the American people ?
Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm that dates from Hitler 's assault on France , now a full 80 years in the past ?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that essential question .
In the meantime , however , allow me to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preliminary of answers .
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon , arms manufacturers , and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in discovering new `` threats '' -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between self-interest and the national interest .
As secretary of state , John Quincy Adams never confused the two .
His latter-day successors have done far less well .
As an actual basis for policy , the turn that Stephen Wertheim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day proponents still purport to believe it to be .
The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was , at best , merely serviceable .
It responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment .
It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany , a necessary undertaking .
After 1945 , except as a device for affirming the authority of foreign-policy elites , the pursuit of `` dominance in the name of internationalism '' proved to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , basic U.S. policy stayed the same : high levels of military spending , a network of foreign bases , a penchant for armed intervention abroad , a sprawling `` national security '' apparatus , and a politically subversive arms industry .
Even after the Cold War and 9/11 , these remain remarkably sacrosanct .
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of : well , I guess it could have been worse .
When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11 , however , it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been .
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment , however , a different interpretation prevails : the long , twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory , unsullied by any unfortunate post-9/11 missteps .
The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin , not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden , are dead and gone .
This paradigm persists for one reason only : it ensures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excludes the popular will .
Elites decide , while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the bill .
In that regard , the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today .
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real change become possible .
The turn in U.S. policy described in Tomorrow , The World came from the top .
The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit of deference when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the world will be .
Those on top will do all in their power to avert any such loss of status .
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and metaphorical .
Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns .
While Americans can not ignore the world beyond their borders , the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of searching for distant monsters to destroy .
Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Andrew Bacevich , a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft .
His most recent book is The Age of Illusions : How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World War II .

The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten bestselling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump's haphazard and continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was all the rage? It's now available in hardcover for $0.99 from online used booksellers. James Comey's Higher Loyaltyalso sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman's "insider's account" of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire Sean Spicer's memoir as Trump's press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci's rendering of his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski's "inside story" of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amaneusis Bob Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It's called Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacyand if you'll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it. Let me explain why.
The "Turn"
Wertheim and I are co-founders of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a small Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That Quincy refers to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad "in search of monsters to destroy." Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait -- its very essence -- "would insensibly change from liberty to force." By resorting to force, America "might become the dictatress of the world," he wrote, but "she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt.
A privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn't this country's purpose to promote revolution elsewhere or to dictate history's future course.
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks: the Greatest Of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had, by the beginning of the twentieth century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914 and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable -- so at least a subsequent generation of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army's lightning victory in the battle of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy paradigm, one he describes as pursuing "dominance in the name of internationalism," with U.S. military supremacy deemed "the prerequisite of a decent world."
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce's Time-Life press empire, and distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While Tomorrow, The World is not a long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a tour de force. In it, Wertheim describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France. He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves castigated as "isolationists," a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed intervention, meanwhile, became "internationalists," a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of "isolationism" that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising "global leadership."
Wertheim persuasively describes the "turn" toward militarized globalism engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war, but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what it meant. Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry -- would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that "so long as the phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted."
Contained within that all is a cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim's book, casting the Cold War as a de facto extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power -- did someone say "the rise of China"? -- are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment's response is simply to double down.
So, even now, staggering levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S. policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in Tomorrow, The World is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a hitherto successfulpolicy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army's sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11. From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive, even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo (including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of a supposed Pax Americana) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of "endless wars" that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of U.S. policy comparable to the "turn" that Wertheim describes has occurred. An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump's promise to put "America First" might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of "fire and fury" alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ("we fell in love"). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump abandoned a global environmental agreement, massively rolled back environmental regulations domestically, and then took credit for providing Americans with "the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet." Little of this was to be taken seriously.
Trump's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic equivalent of Mulligan stew. Examine the contents closely enough and you'll be able to find just about anything. Yet taken as a whole, the concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart puts it, "When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that's going to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers." Biden will increase the Pentagon budget, keep U.S. troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world's number-one arms merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the ongoing modernization of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the "inside."
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. "The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well." Those uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent Foreign Affairs essay.
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of evidence showing that it's not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm that dates from Hitler's assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in discovering new "threats" -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes in Tomorrow, The World has proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was, at best, merely serviceable. It responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" proved to be problematic. Yet even as conditions changed, basic U.S. policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry. Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of: well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11, however, it's difficult to imagine what worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different interpretation prevails: the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: it ensures that statecraft will remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real change become possible. The turn in U.S. policy described in Tomorrow, The World came from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit of deference when it comes to determining what this nation's role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns. While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step toward recovery.
Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 Andrew Bacevic


alternet--2020-10-19--Here's what Bill Barr's DOJ can — and can't — do to disrupt the 2020 race

Attorney General William Barr 's `` slavish obedience '' to President Trump , including attacking the validity of millions of absentee ballots now being cast in the 2020 general election , prompted a federal prosecutor , Phillip Halpern , to publicly resign on October 14 .
He is the third to publicly criticize Barr .
`` This career bureaucrat [ Barr ] seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy , '' wrote Halpern in a San Diego Union-Tribune column .
`` There is no other honest explanation for Barr 's parroting of the president 's wild and unsupported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been contradicted by the president 's handpicked FBI director ) . ''
Halpern 's resignation as an assistant U.S. attorney after 36 years at the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) raises the question of what a politicized DOJ could do to assist Trump 's re-election .
Barr 's `` parroting '' the false claim that mailed-out—or absentee—ballots are a pathway for large-scale voter fraud was akin to becoming one of the `` super-spreaders of disinformation , '' as Emily Bazelon discussed in the October 18 New York Times Sunday Magazine cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervene in the process where returned absentee ballots are accepted or rejected by local and state election officials , or go further and disrupt the counting of votes ?
In short , it can not .
`` They really do n't have any authority , '' said Justin Levitt , a former deputy assistant attorney general who led the DOJ 's voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration , speaking of administering elections .
`` The actual disruption , if it is going to come , will come from campaigns or private parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' `` I know of no federal law that allows the federal government to intervene in a state-based process , under state law , of counting and certifying election results , '' said David Becker , who was a senior trial attorney in the DOJ 's Voting Section for seven years , and now runs the nonprofit , nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research .
`` There is a requirement under federal law that all [ election ] materials , including ballots , be maintained for 22 months , '' Becker said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law that was intended to help prosecutors build voting rights cases .
`` That is largely for evidence gathering and after-the-fact review , if there might be some issue .
That 's actually useful . ''
The Justice Department has no legal authority to intervene in the process of accepting or rejecting any returned absentee ballot , the former DOJ attorneys explained .
Nor does it have the authority to interrupt counting votes and certifying results .
But what the attorney general and the department can do ( and are doing ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the campaign 's final days to cast doubts on the validity of the process in key states .
`` That 's a media-based , press-based disruption , but not one that disrupts the count , '' Levitt said .
`` What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts of a statutory constitutional violation is just a tweet with a filing fee . ''
For months , Trump has been baselessly attacking absentee ballots as a pathway for voter fraud , especially as many polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Democrats than Republicans , were planning to vote by mail in response to the pandemic .
Since mid-summer , Trump has said that local and federal law enforcement would be watching polls and election officials .
In September , Barr amplified some of the false claims about absentee ballot fraud .
Nonetheless , Americans have been casting unprecedented numbers of absentee ballots from coast to coast , according to the U.S .
Elections Project .
As of October 19 , more than 29 million people had already voted early or with mailed-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people requested absentee ballots .
In 2018 's general election , 31 million Americans voted absentee .
The ongoing response by the Trump campaign , assisted by the Republican National Committee and some GOP governors , has been to keep filing lawsuits and appeals to tighten the deadlines and rules surrounding absentee ballots .
As Levitt noted , these were lawsuits filed by campaigns and political parties , not by the Justice Department , because , as he explained , the DOJ 's legal oversight of elections was limited and restricted to three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things they do .
One is they can file civil litigation , '' he said , referring to civil rights laws that arose in the mid-20th century and were mostly concerned with protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that their votes were counted .
`` It 's the former statutes that I used to enforce… It 's a one-way ratchet , '' Levitt said .
`` If you think of the 1950s and 1960s , it makes sense .
What Congress was worried about was local election authorities , in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their race or their perceived party .
So , the federal government has power to make sure that people are n't improperly excluded . ''
The second sphere is enforcing election-related criminal codes , such as prosecuting ballot box stuffing ( which is very rare ) , or election-related threats or violence .
Those investigations would not be allowed to interfere with the processing of ballots and counting votes after Election Day , Levitt said , because the evidence gathering could continue after the results were certified .
`` When DOJ enforces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning for the actual count of ballots , '' he said .
`` When they want to prosecute somebody for voter fraud , that 's about individual accountability .
But the state and local governments still decide whether the ballots count .
So even if DOJ says , 'Yeah , these are fraudulent [ ballots ] , ' that has no legal impact whatsoever on whether a state wants to count them or not . ''
Under federal law , the DOJ has several years to investigate and prosecute , Levitt said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to immediately seize ballots or election records .
Moreover , there is nothing unusual about federal agents observing elections , which has gone on for decades .
Local officials also have protocols to let agents observe and make requests for records to be turned over as evidence , he said .
But they can not step in and reject or seize ballots .
`` It 's not like having somebody in the room breaks a spell and the ballots are invalid , '' Levitt said .
`` What local election officials will do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to inspect them , great .
Here 's a pile sitting over here .
Come in and look , or I 'll go through them .
But they stay in that pile . '
'You want to see who this one 's [ return envelope ] is opened for , let 's go through our process , and we 'll figure out whether a person is eligible or not .
And we 'll make a decision whether to count it or not , and then you can see… [ whose votes are ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' But DOJ sitting in the room is not going to affect if that ballot still has all of the indicators of eligibility . ''
Where the Justice Department has authority to influence elections , however , is in the press—the third sphere cited by Levitt .
But such information warfare is not the same as prosecuting a legal case in a courtroom .
`` Will the Trump administration or President Trump be screaming about fraud in the days after the election ?
The answer obviously yes .
Of course , yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential for disinformation .
`` He was screaming about nonexistent fraud in the 2016 election , which he won .
Three-to-five million noncitizen ballots , which is patent nonsense , and he 's been out screaming about fraud ever since , without any evidence to support it . ''
`` If you 're asking what 's the predicate for Trump to make up facts and claim that the election has been rigged , he 's never needed one , '' he continued .
`` And unfortunately , we 've seen the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal lawyer in this administration than any other I can recall .
And unfortunately , we 've seen DOJ already [ do likewise ] , with a couple of press releases that should never have gone out . ''
In late September , Barr and Trump tried to elevate a minor procedural mistake surrounding nine absentee ballots in central Pennsylvania—a state where 6 million people voted in 2016—into a scandal implying that the 2020 presidential election would not have valid results .
This incident , where nine ballots were mistakenly thrown out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal prosecutors had indicted a Texas man for fabricating 1,700 absentee ballots in 2017 .
There was no Texas indictment , and Barr garbled that case 's facts , local officials said .
`` I think the Luzerne County , Pennsylvania , case is a perfect example , '' said Becker , who left the DOJ after then-President George W. Bush 's attorney general fired career prosecutors for failing to obtain voter fraud convictions—because alleged wide vote thefts had not occurred .
In both instances , the department stepped away from its decades-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` It is baffling to imagine that a relatively minor mistake that seems to have affected nine ballots , at the most , in a county like Luzerne County , Pennsylvania , would be somehow taken by the elected district attorney of that [ county ] and reported , not to the secretary of state , or the [ state ] attorney general , it 's reported to the FBI and the DOJ took it up , '' Becker said .
`` Within three days , a press release was issued indicating , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incorrectly .
And also outing those voters as having voted for a particular candidate . ''
The department 's actions were staged political theater , but not a real investigation , he said .
`` First of all , three days is not sufficient for an investigation of that sort , '' Becker said .
`` Two , I really do n't have any understanding about why a press release was issued about an incident where there is no crime and no criminal .
By all accounts this was a mistake .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because we knew who the voters were .
They could have been contacted , and they could have been given another opportunity to vote , and those previous ballots spoiled . ''
`` It was inexcusable [ for the department ] to release information about who those individuals had voted for , '' he continued .
`` And then , to make matters worse… this relatively minor mistake… was reported on the same day to the attorney general , who then communicated it to the president and used it in a campaign appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echoing Halpern 's resignation letter , said that the DOJ 's reputation was , in part , based on keeping out of elections .
But the department under Trump was heading in the opposite direction , at least with respect to positioning itself to issue more statements to help Trump 's campaign .
`` This is not the way the Department of Justice is supposed to work , '' Becker said .
`` I have further concerns about recent revelations that the Department of Justice has rescinded guidelines about interfering with the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other things about the election , in close proximity to the election .
That was an absolute tenet of ours when we worked there .
We were not to become an actor in an election process .
We were to investigate .
We were , in some cases , to litigate and report out , but not in the context of possibly interfering in an election . ''
In his current role at the Center for Election Innovation and Research , Becker has been in contact with state officials—Democrats and Republicans—who are seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Becker said that he has heard from top Republican election officials that Barr was not interested in the facts about absentee ballots .
`` The attorney general is just wrong about the potential for fraud , '' Becker said .
`` He clearly does n't understand how mail ballots work .
Republican secretaries of state have offered to brief him on this and help him understand , and he has not returned their calls .
He has been making claims about fraud that… have been rejected by federal courts .
In some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is a concern . ''
However , when it comes to the actual processing of returned absentee ballots or counting votes , the former DOJ attorneys emphasized that neither Trump , Barr nor the Department of Justice have the legal authority to step in and disrupt the state-run election process .
But that does n't mean that Trump or Barr will cease reciting disinformation about the voting process—or that the DOJ will stop issuing press statements filled with innuendo .
`` This has been this administration 's modus operandi for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Levitt said .
`` I think there will be plenty of made-for-media conflict that does not necessarily translate to any disruption of the count .
But it is designed to freak people out . ''
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon , AlterNet , the American Prospect , and many others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

Attorney General William Barr's "slavish obedience" to President Trump, including attacking the validity of millions of absentee ballots now being cast in the 2020 general election, prompted a federal prosecutor, Phillip Halpern, to publicly resign on October 14. He is the third to publicly criticize Barr.
"This career bureaucrat [Barr] seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy," wrote Halpern in a San Diego Union-Tribune column. "There is no other honest explanation for Barr's parroting of the president's wild and unsupported conspiracy theories regarding mail-in ballots (which have been contradicted by the president's handpicked FBI director)."
Halpern's resignation as an assistant U.S. attorney after 36 years at the Department of Justice (DOJ) raises the question of what a politicized DOJ could do to assist Trump's re-election.
Barr's "parroting" the false claim that mailed-out—or absentee—ballots are a pathway for large-scale voter fraud was akin to becoming one of the "super-spreaders of disinformation," as Emily Bazelon discussed in the October 18 New York Times Sunday Magazine cover story. But could the Justice Department intervene in the process where returned absentee ballots are accepted or rejected by local and state election officials, or go further and disrupt the counting of votes? In short, it cannot.
"They really don't have any authority," said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who led the DOJ's voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration, speaking of administering elections. "The actual disruption, if it is going to come, will come from campaigns or private parties, but not from the DOJ."
"I know of no federal law that allows the federal government to intervene in a state-based process, under state law, of counting and certifying election results," said David Becker, who was a senior trial attorney in the DOJ's Voting Section for seven years, and now runs the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research.
"There is a requirement under federal law that all [election] materials, including ballots, be maintained for 22 months," Becker said, referring to a 1960s civil rights law that was intended to help prosecutors build voting rights cases. "That is largely for evidence gathering and after-the-fact review, if there might be some issue. That's actually useful."
No Authority to Interfere
The Justice Department has no legal authority to intervene in the process of accepting or rejecting any returned absentee ballot, the former DOJ attorneys explained. Nor does it have the authority to interrupt counting votes and certifying results. But what the attorney general and the department can do (and are doing) is issue statements containing misinformation or announce investigations in the campaign's final days to cast doubts on the validity of the process in key states.
"That's a media-based, press-based disruption, but not one that disrupts the count," Levitt said. "What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts of a statutory constitutional violation is just a tweet with a filing fee."
For months, Trump has been baselessly attacking absentee ballots as a pathway for voter fraud, especially as many polls revealed that millions of Americans, including more Democrats than Republicans, were planning to vote by mail in response to the pandemic. Since mid-summer, Trump has said that local and federal law enforcement would be watching polls and election officials. In September, Barr amplified some of the false claims about absentee ballot fraud.
Nonetheless, Americans have been casting unprecedented numbers of absentee ballots from coast to coast, according to the U.S. Elections Project. As of October 19, more than 29 million people had already voted early or with mailed-out ballots, and more than 82 million people requested absentee ballots. In 2018's general election, 31 million Americans voted absentee.
The ongoing response by the Trump campaign, assisted by the Republican National Committee and some GOP governors, has been to keep filing lawsuits and appeals to tighten the deadlines and rules surrounding absentee ballots. As Levitt noted, these were lawsuits filed by campaigns and political parties, not by the Justice Department, because, as he explained, the DOJ's legal oversight of elections was limited and restricted to three spheres.
"They've got three things they do. One is they can file civil litigation," he said, referring to civil rights laws that arose in the mid-20th century and were mostly concerned with protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that their votes were counted.
"It's the former statutes that I used to enforce… It's a one-way ratchet," Levitt said. "If you think of the 1950s and 1960s, it makes sense. What Congress was worried about was local election authorities, in fact, not counting the votes of people based on their race or their perceived party. So, the federal government has power to make sure that people aren't improperly excluded."
The second sphere is enforcing election-related criminal codes, such as prosecuting ballot box stuffing (which is very rare), or election-related threats or violence. Those investigations would not be allowed to interfere with the processing of ballots and counting votes after Election Day, Levitt said, because the evidence gathering could continue after the results were certified.
"When DOJ enforces the criminal law, that has no meaning for the actual count of ballots," he said. "When they want to prosecute somebody for voter fraud, that's about individual accountability. But the state and local governments still decide whether the ballots count. So even if DOJ says, 'Yeah, these are fraudulent [ballots],' that has no legal impact whatsoever on whether a state wants to count them or not."
Under federal law, the DOJ has several years to investigate and prosecute, Levitt said, which means that they have no basis to immediately seize ballots or election records. Moreover, there is nothing unusual about federal agents observing elections, which has gone on for decades. Local officials also have protocols to let agents observe and make requests for records to be turned over as evidence, he said. But they cannot step in and reject or seize ballots.
"It's not like having somebody in the room breaks a spell and the ballots are invalid," Levitt said. "What local election officials will do is say, 'Okay, you want to inspect them, great. Here's a pile sitting over here. Come in and look, or I'll go through them. But they stay in that pile.' 'You want to see who this one's [return envelope] is opened for, let's go through our process, and we'll figure out whether a person is eligible or not. And we'll make a decision whether to count it or not, and then you can see… [whose votes are] on the inside of this ballot.' But DOJ sitting in the room is not going to affect if that ballot still has all of the indicators of eligibility."
Where the Justice Department has authority to influence elections, however, is in the press—the third sphere cited by Levitt. But such information warfare is not the same as prosecuting a legal case in a courtroom.
"Will the Trump administration or President Trump be screaming about fraud in the days after the election? The answer obviously yes. Of course, yes," Levitt said, referring to the potential for disinformation. "He was screaming about nonexistent fraud in the 2016 election, which he won. Three-to-five million noncitizen ballots, which is patent nonsense, and he's been out screaming about fraud ever since, without any evidence to support it."
"If you're asking what's the predicate for Trump to make up facts and claim that the election has been rigged, he's never needed one," he continued. "And unfortunately, we've seen the attorney general behave far more like Donald Trump's personal lawyer in this administration than any other I can recall. And unfortunately, we've seen DOJ already [do likewise], with a couple of press releases that should never have gone out."
Information Warfare
In late September, Barr and Trump tried to elevate a minor procedural mistake surrounding nine absentee ballots in central Pennsylvania—a state where 6 million people voted in 2016—into a scandal implying that the 2020 presidential election would not have valid results. This incident, where nine ballots were mistakenly thrown out, followed Barr saying in early September that federal prosecutors had indicted a Texas man for fabricating 1,700 absentee ballots in 2017. There was no Texas indictment, and Barr garbled that case's facts, local officials said.
"I think the Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, case is a perfect example," said Becker, who left the DOJ after then-President George W. Bush's attorney general fired career prosecutors for failing to obtain voter fraud convictions—because alleged wide vote thefts had not occurred. In both instances, the department stepped away from its decades-old tradition of not interfering in elections.
"It is baffling to imagine that a relatively minor mistake that seems to have affected nine ballots, at the most, in a county like Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, would be somehow taken by the elected district attorney of that [county] and reported, not to the secretary of state, or the [state] attorney general, it's reported to the FBI and the DOJ took it up," Becker said. "Within three days, a press release was issued indicating, initially, that nine ballots were processed incorrectly. And also outing those voters as having voted for a particular candidate."
The department's actions were staged political theater, but not a real investigation, he said.
"First of all, three days is not sufficient for an investigation of that sort," Becker said. "Two, I really don't have any understanding about why a press release was issued about an incident where there is no crime and no criminal. By all accounts this was a mistake. It was a mistake that was fixable, because we knew who the voters were. They could have been contacted, and they could have been given another opportunity to vote, and those previous ballots spoiled."
"It was inexcusable [for the department] to release information about who those individuals had voted for," he continued. "And then, to make matters worse… this relatively minor mistake… was reported on the same day to the attorney general, who then communicated it to the president and used it in a campaign appearance that same evening."
Becker, echoing Halpern's resignation letter, said that the DOJ's reputation was, in part, based on keeping out of elections. But the department under Trump was heading in the opposite direction, at least with respect to positioning itself to issue more statements to help Trump's campaign.
"This is not the way the Department of Justice is supposed to work," Becker said. "I have further concerns about recent revelations that the Department of Justice has rescinded guidelines about interfering with the election, about putting out press releases and other things about the election, in close proximity to the election. That was an absolute tenet of ours when we worked there. We were not to become an actor in an election process. We were to investigate. We were, in some cases, to litigate and report out, but not in the context of possibly interfering in an election."
In his current role at the Center for Election Innovation and Research, Becker has been in contact with state officials—Democrats and Republicans—who are seeking to run a legitimate election this fall. Becker said that he has heard from top Republican election officials that Barr was not interested in the facts about absentee ballots.
"The attorney general is just wrong about the potential for fraud," Becker said. "He clearly doesn't understand how mail ballots work. Republican secretaries of state have offered to brief him on this and help him understand, and he has not returned their calls. He has been making claims about fraud that… have been rejected by federal courts. In some cases by judges appointed by President Trump. That is a concern."
However, when it comes to the actual processing of returned absentee ballots or counting votes, the former DOJ attorneys emphasized that neither Trump, Barr nor the Department of Justice have the legal authority to step in and disrupt the state-run election process. But that doesn't mean that Trump or Barr will cease reciting disinformation about the voting process—or that the DOJ will stop issuing press statements filled with innuendo.
"This has been this administration's modus operandi for the past three and a half years," Levitt said. "I think there will be plenty of made-for-media conflict that does not necessarily translate to any disruption of the count. But it is designed to freak people out."
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.
This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-19--This single sentence from a federal court's ruling exposes the dark right-wing view of voting

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday stayed an injunction by a lower district court that sought to protect the voting rights of Texans voting by mail .
The majority decision , written by Judge Jerry E. Smith , blocked the lower court 's orders to Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs that would have required officials to notify Texans whose mail ballots were rejected because of an apparent signature mismatch and give them an opportunity to address the issue .
Under current law , election officials can reject a mail ballot if they determine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's signature on file ; officials must notify the voter of the rejection within 10 days .
But even then , the voter may not be given an opportunity to fix the problem .
As the result of an ongoing lawsuit , the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered Hughs to adopt procedures that would allow voters to address a signature mismatch , or to stop rejecting ballots based on signature issues altogether .
Judge Orlando Garcia said the existing policy `` plainly violates certain voters ' constitutional rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this injunction , saying Hughs should follow the law as written — rejecting ballots without necessarily giving voters any due process .
In a remarkable sentence encapsulating the emerging right-wing view of voting rights , the decision explained : Because Texas 's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state 's voting procedures place on the right to vote , we stay the injunction pending appeal .
While this may sound like dry legalese , it 's a dramatically bold and unambiguously dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that `` any burden '' on the right to vote can be justified if it is meant to restrict the opportunity for voter fraud .
This notion sounds like a farcical caricature of Republicans ' views on voting , but it 's an actual statement from right-wing judges defending a right-wing administration .
It falls apart under even the mildest scrutiny though .
While preventing voter fraud is surely a legitimate interest of the state , there must be some reasonable limits on how far the government can go in trying to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , create so many obstacles to voting that 10,000 fewer ballots will be cast in an election if doing so will also stop a handful of fraudulent ballots ?
The answer should obviously be `` no . ''
The problem with voter fraud is that it distorts the will of the electorate , undermining the very point of a democracy .
But if efforts to combat voter fraud distort the democratic process even more than fraud would , it 's difficult to see how they can be justified .
And all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly rare .
But when Republicans discuss voter fraud , all they ever seem to care about is stopping the extremely rare cases of illegally cast ballots .
They almost never consider balancing the risk of fraud with the risk of preventing legitimate votes from being cast .
In this decision , the court made that view explicit .
And it 's even more absurd than it sounds , because the decision actually allows election officials to literally throw away votes that may have been legitimately cast without giving the voter any platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this at least as bad as voter fraud ?
The Texas Tribune reports of this process : The state election code does not establish any standards for signature review , which is conducted by local election officials who seldom have training in signature verification .
So at best , the disposal of ballots may be entirely capricious .
At worst , it could disproportionately target groups of voters that the existing government would rather not have voting — minority groups , for instance , that may be likely to vote Democrat .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motivation is for the laws in this particular case , but the GOP 's actions in the past decade have made clear that they see restricting the right to vote as a vital part of retaining electoral power .
The court 's reasoning lays bear this motivation : Based on the slimmest fears about `` voter fraud , '' they can justify restricting voters ' rights as much as possible .
The path to illegitimately holding on to office is clear .
The Fifth Court 's decision justified the stay in part by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a due process protection for the right vote .
But even if there is , the court argued , there is n't a right to vote by mail — that 's simply an option that Texas provides without being obligated to .
This reasoning , though , is spurious .
If Texas provides voters the option to vote by mail , it is not reasonable that it can then simply reject those ballots based on dubious and unreviewable claims of a signature mismatch that the voter may not even be alerted to until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has provided the option of voting by mail , Texas is still obligated to ensure that the process provides reasonable protections for voters ' rights .
In a concurring opinion , Judge Patrick Higginbotham rejected the majority 's arguments for the stay .
He agreed with issuing the stay , however , noting the difficulties of changing election rules while votes are already being cast .
And he warned that the matter in question is grave : In 2016 and 2018 , `` approximately 5,000 [ Texas ] ballots were rejected on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` 8 Such `` small '' differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections .
And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers .
There is much at stake here .

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday stayed an injunction by a lower district court that sought to protect the voting rights of Texans voting by mail.
The majority decision, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith, blocked the lower court's orders to Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs that would have required officials to notify Texans whose mail ballots were rejected because of an apparent signature mismatch and give them an opportunity to address the issue. Under current law, election officials can reject a mail ballot if they determine that the signature does not match the voter's signature on file; officials must notify the voter of the rejection within 10 days. But even then, the voter may not be given an opportunity to fix the problem.
As the result of an ongoing lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered Hughs to adopt procedures that would allow voters to address a signature mismatch, or to stop rejecting ballots based on signature issues altogether. Judge Orlando Garcia said the existing policy "plainly violates certain voters' constitutional rights." But the Fifth Circuit rejected this injunction, saying Hughs should follow the law as written — rejecting ballots without necessarily giving voters any due process.
In a remarkable sentence encapsulating the emerging right-wing view of voting rights, the decision explained:
Because Texas's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state's voting procedures place on the right to vote, we stay the injunction pending appeal.
While this may sound like dry legalese, it's a dramatically bold and unambiguously dangerous idea. The court's claim is that "any burden" on the right to vote can be justified if it is meant to restrict the opportunity for voter fraud.
This notion sounds like a farcical caricature of Republicans' views on voting, but it's an actual statement from right-wing judges defending a right-wing administration. It falls apart under even the mildest scrutiny though. While preventing voter fraud is surely a legitimate interest of the state, there must be some reasonable limits on how far the government can go in trying to prevent it. Is it reasonable to, say, create so many obstacles to voting that 10,000 fewer ballots will be cast in an election if doing so will also stop a handful of fraudulent ballots?
The answer should obviously be "no." The problem with voter fraud is that it distorts the will of the electorate, undermining the very point of a democracy. But if efforts to combat voter fraud distort the democratic process even more than fraud would, it's difficult to see how they can be justified. And all the best evidence indicates that voter fraud is incredibly rare.
But when Republicans discuss voter fraud, all they ever seem to care about is stopping the extremely rare cases of illegally cast ballots. They almost never consider balancing the risk of fraud with the risk of preventing legitimate votes from being cast. In this decision, the court made that view explicit. And it's even more absurd than it sounds, because the decision actually allows election officials to literally throw away votes that may have been legitimately cast without giving the voter any platform to challenge this decision. Isn't this at least as bad as voter fraud?
The Texas Tribune reports of this process:
The state election code does not establish any standards for signature review, which is conducted by local election officials who seldom have training in signature verification.
So at best, the disposal of ballots may be entirely capricious. At worst, it could disproportionately target groups of voters that the existing government would rather not have voting — minority groups, for instance, that may be likely to vote Democrat. It may be hard to say what the motivation is for the laws in this particular case, but the GOP's actions in the past decade have made clear that they see restricting the right to vote as a vital part of retaining electoral power. The court's reasoning lays bear this motivation: Based on the slimmest fears about "voter fraud," they can justify restricting voters' rights as much as possible. The path to illegitimately holding on to office is clear.
The Fifth Court's decision justified the stay in part by arguing against the idea that there's a due process protection for the right vote. But even if there is, the court argued, there isn't a right to vote by mail — that's simply an option that Texas provides without being obligated to.
This reasoning, though, is spurious. If Texas provides voters the option to vote by mail, it is not reasonable that it can then simply reject those ballots based on dubious and unreviewable claims of a signature mismatch that the voter may not even be alerted to until after Election Day has passed. Once it has provided the option of voting by mail, Texas is still obligated to ensure that the process provides reasonable protections for voters' rights.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Patrick Higginbotham rejected the majority's arguments for the stay. He agreed with issuing the stay, however, noting the difficulties of changing election rules while votes are already being cast. And he warned that the matter in question is grave:
In 2016 and 2018, "approximately 5,000 [Texas] ballots were rejected on the basis of perceived signature mismatches."8 Such "small" differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections. And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers. There is much at stake here.


alternet--2020-10-19--Trump lashes out at Dr. Fauci with a petty and personal smear

On Monday , President Donald Trump fired off tweets attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has sounded increasingly critical of the president .
Fauci has earned widespread trust from the public as one of the top government officials in the response to the coronavirus pandemic , while Trump is seen as an unreliable source of information on the crisis .
But Trump decided to attack Fauci — in the last weeks before an election , no less — not simply about policy disagreements but on a petty and personal level .
During an interview for CBS News ' `` 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Fauci candidly said that he was n't surprised that Trump was recently infected with COVID-19 and that he wishes the president had been more careful .
Trump , Fauci emphasized , could be doing a lot more to promote the use of protective face masks .
Fauci has also said , as news outlets have reported , that he 's been prevented from appearing before the media on numerous occasions .
Trump apparently was n't happy with these remarks , tweeting on Monday : `` Dr. Tony Fauci says we do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet I saw him last night on @ 60Minutes , and he seems to get more airtime than anybody since the late , great , Bob Hope .
All I ask of Tony is that he make better decisions .
He said 'no masks & let China in . '
Also , Bad arm ! ''
Trump has previously claimed that Fauci opposed the restrictions the president placed on travel from China in late January ( he also exaggerates the effectiveness and importance of this move , which quite clearly did not stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States . )
But Fauci was on the record in support of the restrictions at the time .
It 's true that Fauci , like most of the public health community , was slow to realize the importance of widespread mask-wearing and even discouraged its use by ordinary people at the start of the pandemic .
But that was the unanimous position of the administration 's public health agencies , which Trump oversees , so he can not escape blame for this grave error .
And since public officials changed their minds and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to cast doubt about the measure and demonstrably discouraged his followed from taking this vital precaution .
The `` bad arm '' part of the tweet was a baseball reference .
Although the 79-year-old Fauci is a Brooklyn native , he has lived in Washington , D.C. for half a century — and in July , the city 's baseball team , the Washington Nationals , announced that Fauci would be throwing the first pitch of the 2020 Major League Baseball season .
`` Tony should stop wearing the Washington Nationals ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
`` Number one , it is not up to the high standards that he should be exposing .
Number two , it keeps reminding me that Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball ! ''
Not surprisingly , Trump is being mocked on Twitter for his Fauci-related posts .
Travel author Kyle Robert James , @ KyleRobertJames , tweeted , `` This is a level of petty I hope to one day achieve . ''
And Twitter user Frank Amari , @ FrankAmari2 , posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this President gives new meaning to 'National Embarrassment ' — to which @ JPaulMurdock responded , `` Make that International Embarrassment . ''
Another Twitter user , @ aosprague , posted , `` That super hip reference to Bob Hope will totally draw in the younger voters . ''

On Monday, President Donald Trump fired off tweets attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has sounded increasingly critical of the president. Fauci has earned widespread trust from the public as one of the top government officials in the response to the coronavirus pandemic, while Trump is seen as an unreliable source of information on the crisis. But Trump decided to attack Fauci — in the last weeks before an election, no less — not simply about policy disagreements but on a petty and personal level.
During an interview for CBS News' "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday night, Fauci candidly said that he wasn't surprised that Trump was recently infected with COVID-19 and that he wishes the president had been more careful. Trump, Fauci emphasized, could be doing a lot more to promote the use of protective face masks. Fauci has also said, as news outlets have reported, that he's been prevented from appearing before the media on numerous occasions.
Trump apparently wasn't happy with these remarks, tweeting on Monday: "Dr. Tony Fauci says we don't allow him to do television, and yet I saw him last night on @60Minutes, and he seems to get more airtime than anybody since the late, great, Bob Hope. All I ask of Tony is that he make better decisions. He said 'no masks & let China in.' Also, Bad arm!"
Trump has previously claimed that Fauci opposed the restrictions the president placed on travel from China in late January (he also exaggerates the effectiveness and importance of this move, which quite clearly did not stop the virus from coming to the United States.) But Fauci was on the record in support of the restrictions at the time. It's true that Fauci, like most of the public health community, was slow to realize the importance of widespread mask-wearing and even discouraged its use by ordinary people at the start of the pandemic. But that was the unanimous position of the administration's public health agencies, which Trump oversees, so he cannot escape blame for this grave error. And since public officials changed their minds and advocated universal mask-wearing, Trump himself has continued to cast doubt about the measure and demonstrably discouraged his followed from taking this vital precaution.
The "bad arm" part of the tweet was a baseball reference. Although the 79-year-old Fauci is a Brooklyn native, he has lived in Washington, D.C. for half a century — and in July, the city's baseball team, the Washington Nationals, announced that Fauci would be throwing the first pitch of the 2020 Major League Baseball season.
"Tony should stop wearing the Washington Nationals' Mask for two reasons," Trump continued. "Number one, it is not up to the high standards that he should be exposing. Number two, it keeps reminding me that Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball!"
Not surprisingly, Trump is being mocked on Twitter for his Fauci-related posts.
Travel author Kyle Robert James, @KyleRobertJames, tweeted, "This is a level of petty I hope to one day achieve." And Twitter user Frank Amari, @FrankAmari2, posted, "With each new day, this President gives new meaning to 'National Embarrassment' — to which @JPaulMurdock responded, "Make that International Embarrassment." Another Twitter user, @aosprague, posted, "That super hip reference to Bob Hope will totally draw in the younger voters."


alternet--2020-10-19--Trump touted a major new factory — but all Wisconsin got was ‘empty promises and empty buildings’: r

Trump touted a major new factory — but all Wisconsin got was ‘empty promises and empty buildings’: report

President Donald Trump and his supporters were hoping that a deal with the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn would create 13,000 new manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin , guaranteeing that he would win the state this election year and convince voters that he made good on his promise to bring new jobs to the Rust Belt .
But the Foxconn deal , journalist Josh Dzieza emphasizes in an article for The Verge , has been a flop — and the LCD plant that was promised never materialized .
Instead of a manufacturing renaissance , all Wisconsin got were `` empty promises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Verge .
`` Hopes were high among the employees who joined Foxconn 's Wisconsin project in the summer of 2018 , '' Dzieza explains .
`` In June , President Donald Trump had broken ground on an LCD factory he called 'the eighth wonder of the world . '
The scale of the promise was indeed enormous : a $ 10 billion investment from the Taiwanese electronics giant , a 20 million-square-foot manufacturing complex , and , most importantly , 13,000 jobs . ''
In a press release touting the factor in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell .
`` This $ 10 billion investment will create thousands of new American jobs , '' it claimed .
`` The construction of this facility represents a major advancement in regaining America 's place in advanced electronics manufacturing . ''
And the White House did n't hesitate to criticize others who were critical of these grandiose claims .
`` While pundits have said for years that electronics manufacturing in the U.S. was a lost cause , the policies and focus of President Trump 's administration are producing results that show America can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advanced manufacturing , '' it said .
`` The new Foxconn plant has the potential to be one of the largest non-energy manufacturing job creators in modern U.S. history , and powerfully illustrates that nothing is beyond America 's capabilities . ''
Trump himself boasted : `` '' Foxconn joins a growing list of industry leaders who understand that America 's capabilities are limitless and that America 's workers are unmatched , and that America 's most prosperous days are just ahead . ''
These words now ring quite hollow .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foxconn `` calls an LCD factory '' is `` about 1/20th the size of the original plan '' and `` is little more than an empty shell . ''
And in September , Dzieza adds , Foxconn `` received a permit to change its intended use from manufacturing to storage . ''
The Foxconn debacle , Dzieza laments , not only failed to create the 13,000 jobs that were promised , but also , had a high cost in Wisconsin .
`` State and local governments spent at least $ 400 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely never need , '' Dzieza observes .
`` Residents were pushed from their homes under threat of eminent domain , and dozens of houses bulldozed to clear property Foxconn does n't know what to do with . ''
In 2018 , former Wisconsin Gov .
Scott Walker — a Republican Trump ally who was voted out of office in the 2018 midterms — exalted the Foxconn project as `` Wisconn Valley '' — that is , a Wisconsin equivalent of Silicon Valley .
But Walker 's talk of `` Wisconn '' did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : that year , Walker lost to Democrat Tony Evers , now Wisconsin 's governor .
Dzieza notes , `` Rather than the 1040 people Foxconn intended to hire by the end of 2018 , per its contract with the state — or even the 260 needed in order to receive subsidies — an audit found the company had managed to hire only 113 . ''
An engineer who was supposed to work at `` Wisconn Valley , '' interviewed on condition of anonymity , told The Verge , `` The most common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foxconn had a strategy and a business plan when they were coming into Wisconsin .
They did not .
They had no plans at all . ''

President Donald Trump and his supporters were hoping that a deal with the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn would create 13,000 new manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin, guaranteeing that he would win the state this election year and convince voters that he made good on his promise to bring new jobs to the Rust Belt. But the Foxconn deal, journalist Josh Dzieza emphasizes in an article for The Verge, has been a flop — and the LCD plant that was promised never materialized. Instead of a manufacturing renaissance, all Wisconsin got were "empty promises and empty buildings," according to The Verge.
"Hopes were high among the employees who joined Foxconn's Wisconsin project in the summer of 2018," Dzieza explains. "In June, President Donald Trump had broken ground on an LCD factory he called 'the eighth wonder of the world.' The scale of the promise was indeed enormous: a $10 billion investment from the Taiwanese electronics giant, a 20 million-square-foot manufacturing complex, and, most importantly, 13,000 jobs."
In a press release touting the factor in 2017, the White House employed the hard sell.
"This $10 billion investment will create thousands of new American jobs," it claimed. "The construction of this facility represents a major advancement in regaining America's place in advanced electronics manufacturing."
And the White House didn't hesitate to criticize others who were critical of these grandiose claims.
"While pundits have said for years that electronics manufacturing in the U.S. was a lost cause, the policies and focus of President Trump's administration are producing results that show America can eventually re-emerge as a dominate country in advanced manufacturing," it said. "The new Foxconn plant has the potential to be one of the largest non-energy manufacturing job creators in modern U.S. history, and powerfully illustrates that nothing is beyond America's capabilities."
Trump himself boasted: ""Foxconn joins a growing list of industry leaders who understand that America's capabilities are limitless and that America's workers are unmatched, and that America's most prosperous days are just ahead."
These words now ring quite hollow.
According to Dzieza, the building in Wisconsin that Foxconn "calls an LCD factory" is "about 1/20th the size of the original plan" and "is little more than an empty shell." And in September, Dzieza adds, Foxconn "received a permit to change its intended use from manufacturing to storage."
The Foxconn debacle, Dzieza laments, not only failed to create the 13,000 jobs that were promised, but also, had a high cost in Wisconsin.
"State and local governments spent at least $400 million, largely on land and infrastructure Foxconn will likely never need," Dzieza observes. "Residents were pushed from their homes under threat of eminent domain, and dozens of houses bulldozed to clear property Foxconn doesn't know what to do with."
In 2018, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — a Republican Trump ally who was voted out of office in the 2018 midterms — exalted the Foxconn project as "Wisconn Valley" — that is, a Wisconsin equivalent of Silicon Valley. But Walker's talk of "Wisconn" didn't help him in the gubernatorial election: that year, Walker lost to Democrat Tony Evers, now Wisconsin's governor.
Dzieza notes, "Rather than the 1040 people Foxconn intended to hire by the end of 2018, per its contract with the state — or even the 260 needed in order to receive subsidies — an audit found the company had managed to hire only 113."
An engineer who was supposed to work at "Wisconn Valley," interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Verge, "The most common misunderstanding with Foxconn is people here thought Foxconn had a strategy and a business plan when they were coming into Wisconsin. They did not. They had no plans at all."


alternet--2020-10-19--Why I'm on a hunger strike to stop Donald Trump

I am on a 30-day , water-only hunger strike until Election Day to defeat Donald Trump .
My mission is not so much to convince conservatives they should have a change of heart ( though that would be great ) , but to convince progressives who may still harbor some hesitations about going all out for Biden .
They do n't just need to vote for him , they need to work for him .
I 'm trying to dramatize that the possibility of a Trump reelection poses an existential threat to democracy , public health , the climate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you 're in the left wing of the Democratic party , if you supported Sanders or Warren , if you embrace the Green New Deal and Medicare for All , and even if you were n't happy when Biden emerged as the nominee and found him too moderate , it 's time for you to put yourself on the line to get him and Harris elected .
Likewise , if you 're an independent voter like me who finds some of Biden 's positions problematic , it 's time to get clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , it 's appropriate and necessary to overcome your hesitation and throw your support behind Biden .
Donald Trump has been a disaster for the climate , democracy , the rule of law , people of color , women , low-income people , truth , civility , and human decency .
His response to the indictments of 13 far-right , Trump-supporting extremists for plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been to repeatedly criticize Whitmer , and not the extremists .
In fact , he 's clearly appealing to extremists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the polls , Trump refuses to say he 'll accept a peaceful transition of power if he loses , continues to undermine mail-in voting , and repeats his call for his supporters to descend on polling places on November 3 .
I 'm motivated by all these things , but especially by the climate emergency .
I 'm a lifelong progressive activist , and ran as the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from New Jersey in 2002 .
Since 2003 the primary focus of my work has been the climate crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like I and other climate activists were the proverbial voices crying in the wilderness .
Today , a majority of Americans agree with us .
They support climate action , including transitioning rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy and battery storage .
Trump and his supporters are a minority , bent on hijacking the widespread call for climate action .
The only solution for that is to remove Trump from the White House .
To dramatize the life-and-death stakes , I began a month-long , water-only Fast to Defeat Trump on October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 3 .
I started thinking about doing this over the Christmas/New Year holidays .
I was working for the Bernie Sanders campaign and the climate movement , and observing the unfolding of the Presidential race .
After the Democratic and Republican conventions , I decided I needed to make a life-on-the-line statement about the importance of defeating Trump .
I do n't encourage anyone to try this at home , especially in the pandemic .
It takes knowledge and experience to fast relatively safely , and I have plenty of both .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 25 days or longer : once for 40 days in the summer of 1972 for an end to the war in Vietnam , once for 42 days in the fall of 1992 in opposition to the planned government celebrations of Columbus ' quincentennial , and once for 25 days in 2007 to demand action on the climate emergency .
But I do encourage everyone to support the Democratic ticket .
There 's only one way to get Trump out , and that 's to replace him with Biden .
Once that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move forward with its campaigns for a Green New Deal , Medicare for All , police demilitarization and restructuring and more .
But first , we need to do this .
I also hope that my action will motivate young people who are turned off by electoral politics , especially by the unedifying spectacle they 're getting treated to this year .
I urge them to register now and vote because getting Trump out is our best hope for making the fundamental transformation their generation needs and has a right to demand from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will help motivate people to do more than just vote .
We need to work concertedly from now until November 3 to help generate a historic voter turnout , especially in the battleground states .
There is nothing more important to do in the weeks ahead than to go all in to get Trump out .
Ted Glick is a nationally known progressive and climate justice activist who has led and participated in hundreds of actions .
He served as the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network , and was National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network .
His latest book is Burglar for Peace : Lessons Learned in the Catholic Left 's Resistance to the Vietnam War .

by Ted Glick
I am on a 30-day, water-only hunger strike until Election Day to defeat Donald Trump. My mission is not so much to convince conservatives they should have a change of heart (though that would be great), but to convince progressives who may still harbor some hesitations about going all out for Biden. They don't just need to vote for him, they need to work for him.
I'm trying to dramatize that the possibility of a Trump reelection poses an existential threat to democracy, public health, the climate, and everything progressives hold dear.
So if you're in the left wing of the Democratic party, if you supported Sanders or Warren, if you embrace the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, and even if you weren't happy when Biden emerged as the nominee and found him too moderate, it's time for you to put yourself on the line to get him and Harris elected.
Likewise, if you're an independent voter like me who finds some of Biden's positions problematic, it's time to get clear that Trump is such a threat to the country, it's appropriate and necessary to overcome your hesitation and throw your support behind Biden.
Donald Trump has been a disaster for the climate, democracy, the rule of law, people of color, women, low-income people, truth, civility, and human decency. His response to the indictments of 13 far-right, Trump-supporting extremists for plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been to repeatedly criticizeWhitmer, andnot the extremists. In fact, he's clearly appealing to extremists to disrupt this election. While trailing in the polls, Trump refuses to say he'll accept a peaceful transition of power if he loses, continues to undermine mail-in voting, and repeats his call for his supporters to descend on polling places on November 3.
I'm motivated by all these things, but especially by the climate emergency. I'm a lifelong progressive activist, and ran as the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from New Jersey in 2002. Since 2003 the primary focus of my work has been the climate crisis. Seventeen years ago, it felt like I and other climate activists were the proverbial voices crying in the wilderness. Today, a majority of Americans agree with us. They support climate action, including transitioning rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy and battery storage.
Trump and his supporters are a minority, bent on hijacking the widespread call for climate action. The only solution for that is to remove Trump from the White House. To dramatize the life-and-death stakes, I began a month-long, water-only Fast to Defeat Trump on October 3 and won't end it until November 3.
I started thinking about doing this over the Christmas/New Year holidays. I was working for the Bernie Sanders campaign and the climate movement, and observing the unfolding of the Presidential race. After the Democratic and Republican conventions, I decided I needed to make a life-on-the-line statement about the importance of defeating Trump.
I don't encourage anyone to try this at home, especially in the pandemic. It takes knowledge and experience to fast relatively safely, and I have plenty of both. I have done three previous water-only fasts of 25 days or longer: once for 40 days in the summer of 1972 for an end to the war in Vietnam, once for 42 days in the fall of 1992 in opposition to the planned government celebrations of Columbus' quincentennial, and once for 25 days in 2007 to demand action on the climate emergency.
But I do encourage everyone to support the Democratic ticket. There's only one way to get Trump out, and that's to replace him with Biden. Once that is accomplished, the rising progressive movement can move forward with its campaigns for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, police demilitarization and restructuring and more. But first, we need to do this.
I also hope that my action will motivate young people who are turned off by electoral politics, especially by the unedifying spectacle they're getting treated to this year. I urge them to register now and vote because getting Trump out is our best hope for making the fundamental transformation their generation needs and has a right to demand from its leaders.
And I hope I will help motivate people to do more than just vote. We need to work concertedly from now until November 3 to help generate a historic voter turnout, especially in the battleground states. There is nothing more important to do in the weeks ahead than to go all in to get Trump out.
Ted Glick is a nationally known progressive and climate justice activist who has led and participated in hundreds of actions. He served as the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network, and was National Campaign Coordinator of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. His latest book is Burglar for Peace: Lessons Learned in the Catholic Left's Resistance to the Vietnam War.