truthout--2020-11-14--Trump’s Post-Election Power Grab Isn’t Just Selfish, It’s Dangerous to Democracy

It ’ s been a full week since all credible media outlets concluded that Joe Biden had the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency .
And , in the last two days , those same outlets have called Arizona and Georgia for Biden as well , meaning he will end up with 306 Electoral College votes .
That is virtually identical to the number that Donald Trump received in 2016 , which he insisted gave him a huge electoral mandate .
But still Donald Trump is nowhere nearer to accepting the results , and close advisers such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisting they are preparing for a second Trump term .
Biden has been congratulated by a range of world leaders .
International monitors have concluded there was no wholesale fraud in the election process .
And elections officials from across the country contacted by The New York Times have consistently reiterated that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 elections .
Through it all , Trump has refused to concede , and , worse , has developed a fantasy narrative about massive levels of fraud , and a vast conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is , of course , an absurdity .
Yet , shamefully , senior cabinet officials such as Attorney General Bill Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , and most of the Senate Republicans — members of a party that has made voter suppression a key part of its electoral strategy in recent years , and that repeatedly refused to fund election protection efforts in recent months — have thrown their lot in with this historically unprecedented attack on U.S. democracy .
As a result , the U.S. is in uncharted waters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration is refusing to acknowledge and refusing to cooperate with regarding preparations for a transfer of power .
The General Services Administration , which signs the paperwork necessary for a transition to begin , is balking at signing this paperwork .
Trump appointees have been told that if they start looking for new jobs , thus signifying their sense that the game is up , they will be fired .
And government agencies have been told to start working on a Trump-priorities budget for 2021-2022 .
Astoundingly — yet all too predictably , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past months and years about only accepting an election result that goes his way — experts are now wrestling with a very real question : Can Trump somehow orchestrate a coup through some combination of GOP intransigence , pressure on state legislators and governors not to certify election results and not to send Biden-voting electors to the Electoral College , a purging of the military ’ s civilian leadership so as to stack the Pentagon with “ yes ” -men , and armed paramilitarism to sustain him in power ?
And , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Trump ’ s team is filing one frivolous lawsuit after another , in Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Nevada and Arizona in particular .
This strategy seems less about actually winning court victories — as soon as judges throw out one case , they add another one into the mix — than about muddying the waters , gumming up the vote certification process , and putting out a tsunami of lies to a political base that is ready to believe that a nefarious , national conspiracy is working to deprive their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Pennsylvania , in particular , GOP state legislators are falling in line , looking to establish all kinds of commissions of inquiry into the election , not in response to proven cases of fraud , but as a sort of catch-all fishing expedition .
One assumes the ultimate intent of all of this is to reach a conclusion that the “ true ” will of the people can not be known , and thus state officials should step up to the plate with their own electors Meanwhile , Trump has “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who stood up to the president when the wannabe-strongman sought to send U.S. military forces against racial justice protesters in June .
And he has also purged much of the Pentagon ’ s civilian leadership structure as well , and has forced the Energy Department official who has oversight responsibilities for the country ’ s nuclear arsenal to resign .
In Washington , D.C. , rumors are rife that these purges will soon also extend to the CIA and the FBI .
Now , this might all be nothing more than Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to settle personal scores , but a lesson I have learned in writing about Trump for four years is it ’ s always a safe bet to assume the worst .
And the worst in this instance is… well , pretty bad .
And now die-hard Trump supporters , including assorted white nationalist groups and conspiracy-peddlers such as Alex Jones , are mobilizing for what they call the Nov. 14 “ Million MAGA March ” on Washington , D.C .
While many of Trump ’ s recent efforts to draw out large nationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grows more desperate , there ’ s certainly a real risk that he could embrace the sort of paramilitarism that he has been flirting with throughout his presidency .
After all , Trump has , at various times , talked of having “ the bikers ” on his side ; has given shout-outs to militias in Michigan , Virginia and elsewhere ; and has played coy with the Proud Boys and other fascist outfits .
Now , cornered electorally , Trump is adding fuel to authoritarian fires by peddling a stab-in-the-back narrative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom have begun bringing weapons to political protests and who have , on occasion , used them ) .
Trump ’ s narrative asserts that real Americans voted for him , but that an assorted set of phony Americans ( people he sees as racially or politically or sexually suspect ) got together , plotted with the media and with state officials , and ended up subverting the true popular will .
This is , of course , utter nonsense .
But it ’ s nonsense that is rapidly acquiring a life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest danger to U.S. democracy .
Trump ’ s lawsuits won ’ t overturn the election result .
When push comes to shove , it ’ s hard to see how state political leaders in multiple states will select electors who don ’ t reflect the will of each state ’ s majority .
Unlike Florida in 2000 , when the result came down to a few hundred votes and a few hundred damaged ballots , it ’ s hard to see how the Supreme Court would get involved .
Trump may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency and deploy U.S. troops against his opponents ; but it ’ s not at all clear that the military brass would go along with such a clear attempt at a coup .
What ’ s more likely is that , in breaking so dramatically with the tradition of the losing candidate in U.S. elections graciously conceding to one ’ s opponent , Trump is poisoning the well of democracy , taking a gratuitous dump on his way out of the door .
And the danger in doing so is that he doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporarily — he permanently damages the social and political fabric of the country .
That ’ s not just graceless , it is far more sinister .
To satiate his need for adulation and attention , Trump is willing to peddle a lie to his 70 million-plus voters , telling them they have been cheated and that democracy has failed them Germans went down a similar road of conspiracy peddling and stab-in-the-back musings in the 1920s and early 1930s , in the wake of the country ’ s defeat in the First World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that points toward fascism .
It ’ s a road that creates a permanent divide , fissuring a country ’ s politics and making cooperation across party lines increasingly inconceivable .
I can ’ t think of another U.S. politician since Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis who has done such damage to the fabric of U.S. democracy .
Trump might wrap himself in the flag , huffing and puffing about what a patriot he is .
But it ’ s all guff .
When push comes to shove , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And now , in the twilight of his presidency , he ’ s showing the world that he ’ s willing to vandalize the entire democratic infrastructure of this country , simply as a coda to his four-year story of vanity and greed .

It’s been a full week since all credible media outlets concluded that Joe Biden had the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency. And, in the last two days, those same outlets have called Arizona and Georgia for Biden as well, meaning he will end up with 306 Electoral College votes.
That is virtually identical to the number that Donald Trump received in 2016, which he insisted gave him a huge electoral mandate. But still Donald Trump is nowhere nearer to accepting the results, and close advisers such as trade envoy Peter Navarro are still insisting they are preparing for a second Trump term.
Biden has been congratulated by a range of world leaders. International monitors have concluded there was no wholesale fraud in the election process. And elections officials from across the country contacted by The New York Times have consistently reiterated that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 elections.
Through it all, Trump has refused to concede, and, worse, has developed a fantasy narrative about massive levels of fraud, and a vast conspiracy to throw the election to Biden. It is, of course, an absurdity. Yet, shamefully, senior cabinet officials such as Attorney General Bill Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and most of the Senate Republicans — members of a party that has made voter suppression a key part of its electoral strategy in recent years, and that repeatedly refused to fund election protection efforts in recent months — have thrown their lot in with this historically unprecedented attack on U.S. democracy.
As a result, the U.S. is in uncharted waters, with a president-elect whom the current administration is refusing to acknowledge and refusing to cooperate with regarding preparations for a transfer of power.
The General Services Administration, which signs the paperwork necessary for a transition to begin, is balking at signing this paperwork. Trump appointees have been told that if they start looking for new jobs, thus signifying their sense that the game is up, they will be fired. And government agencies have been told to start working on a Trump-priorities budget for 2021-2022.
Astoundingly — yet all too predictably, given everything Trump has said over the past months and years about only accepting an election result that goes his way — experts are now wrestling with a very real question: Can Trump somehow orchestrate a coup through some combination of GOP intransigence, pressure on state legislators and governors not to certify election results and not to send Biden-voting electors to the Electoral College, a purging of the military’s civilian leadership so as to stack the Pentagon with “yes”-men, and armed paramilitarism to sustain him in power? And, if so, what would this look like?
Trump’s team is filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona in particular. This strategy seems less about actually winning court victories — as soon as judges throw out one case, they add another one into the mix — than about muddying the waters, gumming up the vote certification process, and putting out a tsunami of lies to a political base that is ready to believe that a nefarious, national conspiracy is working to deprive their leader of his God-given right to rule.
In breaking so dramatically with the tradition of conceding to one’s opponent, Trump is poisoning the well of democracy.
In Pennsylvania, in particular, GOP state legislators are falling in line, looking to establish all kinds of commissions of inquiry into the election, not in response to proven cases of fraud, but as a sort of catch-all fishing expedition. One assumes the ultimate intent of all of this is to reach a conclusion that the “true” will of the people cannot be known, and thus state officials should step up to the plate with their own electors
Meanwhile, Trump has “terminated” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who stood up to the president when the wannabe-strongman sought to send U.S. military forces against racial justice protesters in June. And he has also purged much of the Pentagon’s civilian leadership structure as well, and has forced the Energy Department official who has oversight responsibilities for the country’s nuclear arsenal to resign.
In Washington, D.C., rumors are rife that these purges will soon also extend to the CIA and the FBI. Now, this might all be nothing more than Trump using his last few weeks in office to settle personal scores, but a lesson I have learned in writing about Trump for four years is it’s always a safe bet to assume the worst. And the worst in this instance is… well, pretty bad.
And now die-hard Trump supporters, including assorted white nationalist groups and conspiracy-peddlers such as Alex Jones, are mobilizing for what they call the November 14 “Million MAGA March” on Washington, D.C.
While many of Trump’s recent efforts to draw out large nationalist street-fighting crowds have fizzled, as Trump grows more desperate, there’s certainly a real risk that he could embrace the sort of paramilitarism that he has been flirting with throughout his presidency. After all, Trump has, at various times, talked of having “the bikers” on his side; has given shout-outs to militias in Michigan, Virginia and elsewhere; and has played coy with the Proud Boys and other fascist outfits.
Now, cornered electorally, Trump is adding fuel to authoritarian fires by peddling a stab-in-the-back narrative to his most fervent supporters — many of whom have begun bringing weapons to political protests and who have, on occasion, used them). Trump’s narrative asserts that real Americans voted for him, but that an assorted set of phony Americans (people he sees as racially or politically or sexually suspect) got together, plotted with the media and with state officials, and ended up subverting the true popular will.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. But it’s nonsense that is rapidly acquiring a life of its own.
And there may lie the greatest danger to U.S. democracy. Trump’s lawsuits won’t overturn the election result. When push comes to shove, it’s hard to see how state political leaders in multiple states will select electors who don’t reflect the will of each state’s majority. Unlike Florida in 2000, when the result came down to a few hundred votes and a few hundred damaged ballots, it’s hard to see how the Supreme Court would get involved. Trump may try to declare some sort of national emergency and deploy U.S. troops against his opponents; but it’s not at all clear that the military brass would go along with such a clear attempt at a coup.
What’s more likely is that, in breaking so dramatically with the tradition of the losing candidate in U.S. elections graciously conceding to one’s opponent, Trump is poisoning the well of democracy, taking a gratuitous dump on his way out of the door. And the danger in doing so is that he doesn’t just stink up the place temporarily — he permanently damages the social and political fabric of the country.
That’s not just graceless, it is far more sinister. To satiate his need for adulation and attention, Trump is willing to peddle a lie to his 70 million-plus voters, telling them they have been cheated and that democracy has failed them
Germans went down a similar road of conspiracy peddling and stab-in-the-back musings in the 1920s and early 1930s, in the wake of the country’s defeat in the First World War. It’s a road that points toward fascism. It’s a road that creates a permanent divide, fissuring a country’s politics and making cooperation across party lines increasingly inconceivable.
I can’t think of another U.S. politician since Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis who has done such damage to the fabric of U.S. democracy. Trump might wrap himself in the flag, huffing and puffing about what a patriot he is. But it’s all guff. When push comes to shove, he’s always been in this only for himself. And now, in the twilight of his presidency, he’s showing the world that he’s willing to vandalize the entire democratic infrastructure of this country, simply as a coda to his four-year story of vanity and greed.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-14--To Protect the Great Lakes, Michigan Governor Moves to Shut Down Pipeline

Environmental and Indigenous activists celebrated Friday after Democratic Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer took action to shut down the decades-old Enbridge Line 5 oil and natural gas pipelines that run under the Straits of Mackinac , narrow waterways that connect Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—two of the Great Lakes .
Citing the threat to the Great Lakes as well as “ persistent and incurable violations ” by Enbridge , Whitmer and Michigan Department of Natural Resources ( DNR ) Director Dan Eichinger informed the Canadian fossil fuel giant that a 1953 easement allowing it to operate the pipelines is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked the Ingham County Circuit Court to validate , gives Enbridge until May 2021 to stop operating the twin pipelines , “ allowing for an orderly transition that protects Michigan ’ s energy needs over the coming months , ” according to a statement from the governor ’ s office .
The Great Lakes collectively contain about a fifth of the world ’ s surface fresh water .
As Whitmer explained Friday , “ Here in Michigan , the Great Lakes define our borders , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect our Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs , ” the governor said .
“ They have repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put our Great Lakes and our families at risk.
” “ Most importantly , Enbridge has imposed on the people of Michigan an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that could devastate our economy and way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s why we ’ re taking action now , and why I will continue to hold accountable anyone who threatens our Great Lakes and fresh water.
” MLive noted that the state attorney general ’ s new filing “ is in addition to Nessel ’ s lawsuit filed in 2019 seeking the shutdown of Line 5 , which remains pending in the same court.
” Nessel said Friday that Whitmer and Eichinger “ are making another clear statement that Line 5 poses a great risk to our state , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waterways.
” The “ bombshell news , ” as one Michigan reporter called it , elicited applause from environmentalists and Indigenous leaders within and beyond the state .
“ This is a brave and just decision for the Great Lakes , ” Mike Shriberg , the National Wildlife Federation ’ s regional executive director for the Great Lakes , told MLive .
“ It ’ s going to benefit the Great Lakes by removing what is probably the single biggest threat to water quality in the region.
” Enbridge was responsible for one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. history—a major leak on one of its large oil transmission lines near Marshall in July 2010 .
That spill fouled more than 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River and took four years and more than $ 1 billion to clean up .
Enbridge in 2016 agreed to a $ 177-million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency , including $ 62 million in penalties , over the Marshall spill and a 2010 spill on another of its pipelines in Romeoville , Illinois .
A similar spill disaster on Line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Lakes shoreline communities and the Michigan economy , critics of the pipeline have long contended .
Enbridge officials have countered that Line 5 is safe .
“ Line 5 should have never been built in the first place , ” Shriberg told the Free Press .
“ Gov .
Whitmer is now bravely , and correctly , standing up for the Great Lakes.
” “ This is a legacy-defining action by the governor , ” he added .
“ She is standing on the side not only of clean water , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the transition to a renewable energy economy.
” Dallas Goldtooth , Keep It In The Ground Campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network , welcomed the “ huge news ” in a series of tweets that acknowledged the years of campaigning by tribal nations against the Line 5 : “ We are thrilled and thankful for Gov .
Whitmer ’ s decision to revoke the easement for Enbridge ’ s pipeline to run beneath the Straits , ” Bryan Newland , president of the Bay Mills Indian Community , said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consistently shown that it only cares about its profits and not about the communities of the Great Lakes .
This is a monumental first step in rectifying the harm that the company has already inflicted upon Bay Mills and other tribal nations for decades.
” The shutdown notice is “ an enormous victory for the climate , and for incredible organizers who have fought for many years !
” declared activist and author Bill McKibben , who co-founded 350.org .
After thanking both Whitmer and “ the indefatigable organizers , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often enough we Shut Stuff Down !
” Sen. Gary Peters ( D-Mich. ) also welcomed the development in a statement Friday .
Peters , who secured a narrow reelection victory last week , is a member of the Senate Commerce , Science , and Transportation Committee , which oversees the federal agency responsible for pipeline safety .
“ There ’ s no question an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac would have catastrophic and long-term consequences to the economic and environmental health of Michigan and the Great Lakes , ” Peters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we already know from the Enbridge pipeline leak in the Kalamazoo River just how devastating and costly spills are to our state.
” “ Given the structural integrity and age concerns around Line 5—particularly in recent years—and Enbridge ’ s failures and inability to be transparent with Michiganders , it ’ s clear that Line 5 poses too serious of a threat and must be removed in the coming months , ” the congressman continued , vowing to work with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ( PHMSA ) and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternatives to Line 5 while continuing to hold Enbridge accountable .
”

The bombshell news elicited applause from environmentalists and Indigenous leaders within and beyond the state.
Environmental and Indigenous activists celebrated Friday after Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took action to shut down the decades-old Enbridge Line 5 oil and natural gas pipelines that run under the Straits of Mackinac, narrow waterways that connect Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—two of the Great Lakes.
Citing the threat to the Great Lakes as well as “persistent and incurable violations” by Enbridge, Whitmer and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director Dan Eichinger informed the Canadian fossil fuel giant that a 1953 easement allowing it to operate the pipelines is being revoked and terminated.
The move, which Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked the Ingham County Circuit Court to validate, gives Enbridge until May 2021 to stop operating the twin pipelines, “allowing for an orderly transition that protects Michigan’s energy needs over the coming months,” according to a statement from the governor’s office.
The Great Lakes collectively contain about a fifth of the world’s surface fresh water. As Whitmer explained Friday, “Here in Michigan, the Great Lakes define our borders, but they also define who we are as people.”
“Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect our Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs,” the governor said. “They have repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put our Great Lakes and our families at risk.”
“Most importantly, Enbridge has imposed on the people of Michigan an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that could devastate our economy and way of life,” she added. “That’s why we’re taking action now, and why I will continue to hold accountable anyone who threatens our Great Lakes and fresh water.”
MLive noted that the state attorney general’s new filing “is in addition to Nessel’s lawsuit filed in 2019 seeking the shutdown of Line 5, which remains pending in the same court.” Nessel said Friday that Whitmer and Eichinger “are making another clear statement that Line 5 poses a great risk to our state, and it must be removed from our public waterways.”
The “bombshell news,” as one Michigan reporter called it, elicited applause from environmentalists and Indigenous leaders within and beyond the state.
“This is a brave and just decision for the Great Lakes,” Mike Shriberg, the National Wildlife Federation’s regional executive director for the Great Lakes, told MLive. “It’s going to benefit the Great Lakes by removing what is probably the single biggest threat to water quality in the region.”
As the Detroit Free Press detailed Friday:
Enbridge was responsible for one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history—a major leak on one of its large oil transmission lines near Marshall in July 2010. That spill fouled more than 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River and took four years and more than $1 billion to clean up. Enbridge in 2016 agreed to a $177-million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency, including $62 million in penalties, over the Marshall spill and a 2010 spill on another of its pipelines in Romeoville, Illinois. A similar spill disaster on Line 5 in the Straits would devastate the Great Lakes shoreline communities and the Michigan economy, critics of the pipeline have long contended. Enbridge officials have countered that Line 5 is safe.
“Line 5 should have never been built in the first place,” Shriberg told the Free Press. “Gov. Whitmer is now bravely, and correctly, standing up for the Great Lakes.”
“This is a legacy-defining action by the governor,” he added. “She is standing on the side not only of clean water, but clean energy and the jobs that go along with the transition to a renewable energy economy.”
Dallas Goldtooth, Keep It In The Ground Campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network, welcomed the “huge news” in a series of tweets that acknowledged the years of campaigning by tribal nations against the Line 5:
HUGE NEWS: Michigan @GovWhitmer has just moved to terminate and revoke easement for @Enbridge to operate its Line 5 pipeline on the bed of the Great Lakes in North Michigan!!!!! — Dallas Goldtooth (@dallasgoldtooth) November 13, 2020
“We are thrilled and thankful for Gov. Whitmer’s decision to revoke the easement for Enbridge’s pipeline to run beneath the Straits,” Bryan Newland, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said in a statement from Earthjustice. “Enbridge has consistently shown that it only cares about its profits and not about the communities of the Great Lakes. This is a monumental first step in rectifying the harm that the company has already inflicted upon Bay Mills and other tribal nations for decades.”
The shutdown notice is “an enormous victory for the climate, and for incredible organizers who have fought for many years!” declared activist and author Bill McKibben, who co-founded 350.org. After thanking both Whitmer and “the indefatigable organizers,” he added that “it’s not often enough we Shut Stuff Down!”
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) also welcomed the development in a statement Friday. Peters, who secured a narrow reelection victory last week, is a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which oversees the federal agency responsible for pipeline safety.
“There’s no question an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac would have catastrophic and long-term consequences to the economic and environmental health of Michigan and the Great Lakes,” Peters said. “Unfortunately here in Michigan, we already know from the Enbridge pipeline leak in the Kalamazoo River just how devastating and costly spills are to our state.”
“Given the structural integrity and age concerns around Line 5—particularly in recent years—and Enbridge’s failures and inability to be transparent with Michiganders, it’s clear that Line 5 poses too serious of a threat and must be removed in the coming months,” the congressman continued, vowing to work with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the State of Michigan “to swiftly evaluate alternatives to Line 5 while continuing to hold Enbridge accountable.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-14--Trump and GOP Are Moving to Pack the FEC With Partisans, Says Watchdog Group

Senate Republicans plan to move forward with three Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) nominations next week , raising concerns that the party is attempting to pack the panel with “ partisans ” after blocking it from enforcing election laws for more than a year .
The FEC has been without a quorum for most of the last 14 months , preventing it from holding meetings and enforcing laws throughout nearly the entire presidential campaign .
The commission faces a backlog of more than 350 matters , according to Ellen Weintraub , the lone Democratic commissioner .
Shortly ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced plans to take up the nominations of two Republicans and an independent next week , which a watchdog group warned would stack the panel with “ biased ” commissioners and result in “ gridlock ” that would leave key cases undecided .
“ For the sake of fair and functional oversight of our campaign finance system , the Senate simply can not indulge the soon-to-be-ex-President Trump ’ s scheme to quietly pack the FEC with partisans and let bad actors off the hook indefinitely , ” Kyle Herrig , the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salon in a statement .
Herrig wrote a letter to Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, and ranking member Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , warning of the “ growing threat of harmful politicization ” of the FEC by the Trump administration .
In it , he called for the committee to block the “ ideologically-driven ” nominations .
“ The Trump administration ’ s early and continuous undoing of the FEC has only changed course in recent weeks , in the closing days of an election cycle , ” Herrig warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively with Salon .
The commission is designed to be evenly bipartisan with three Republicans and three Democrats .
It currently has one Republican , one Democrat and one independent .
The president typically nominates one Republican and one Democrat to fill vacant slots at the same time .
But Trump , shortly ahead of the election , nominated two Republicans and one Democratic-backed independent after pushing through the confirmation of another lone Republican last year .
“ In addition to the timing of FEC commissioner nominations and confirmation hearings , the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and equitable makeup of commissioners for the FEC is cause for grave concern , ” Herrig wrote to the senators .
“ The traditional standard has been that two ideologically contrasting nominees are presented for a vote to the FEC at the same time .
And yet , earlier this year , the Trump administration and Senate Republicans pushed through the nomination of James Trainor — a former attorney for the Trump campaign itself.
” Moving forward with the nominations of another Republican without a Democratic counterpart and a previously-negotiated Republican-Independent pairing would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , essentially leaving the FEC in the same place it is today , ” Herrig wrote , “ unable to issue clear , decisive opinions on the critically important issues that come before the commission.
” The refusal of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) to fill the three vacant seats left the commission toothless during the presidential campaign .
Brendan Fischer , the director of federal reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center , alleged earlier this year that McConnell was trying to “ neuter the FEC ” in hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents of campaign finance on the FEC ” so he “ can basically undermine the law from within.
” The commission has not even been able to meet to discuss complaints , including one from the Campaign Legal Center accusing the Trump campaign of disguising $ 170 million in campaign spending by “ laundering ” the money through companies run by former campaign manager Brad Parscale or formed by Trump campaign attorneys .
The nonpartisan watchdog also called on the FEC to impose more limits on leadership PACs , which are used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded by campaign committees and are often used to fund other candidates , after the Trump team solicited donations for what it claimed was a “ recount ” effort but will largely go toward a new Trump leadership PAC instead .
Another complaint by Rep. Bill Parscale ( D-N.J. ) , called on the FEC to investigate whether the Trump campaign had violated campaign finance rules by failing to report unpaid debts stemming from his campaign rallies .
Trump , who spent months ahead of the election laying the groundwork to sow doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President-elect Joe Biden , has announced a flurry of legal moves to try to reverse the popular vote in multiple states based on unfounded allegations of fraud and irregularities .
Though numerous election officials from both parties have said there is zero evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities , the president ’ s claims have been echoed by Trainor , the Republican head of the commission who was confirmed without a Democratic counterpart last year .
“ I do believe that there is voter fraud taking place in these places , ” Trainor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , describing the president ’ s legal challenges as “ very valid allegations.
” But most legal scholars have said the claims are “ meritless ” and “ frivolous.
” Trump waited until shortly before the election to nominate new commissioners .
In September , the president nominated Republican Allen Dickerson without a Democratic counterpart .
Dickerson , who has long defended the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United decision which injected hundreds of millions in dark money into elections , currently serves as the legal director of the Institute for Free Speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other prominent conservative billionaires .
Dickerson has argued that “ corporations have long had First Amendment rights , and for good reason ” in defending corporate money in elections .
He also once joined a lawsuit against then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris for requesting a Koch-backed group reveal its donors .
In October , Trump nominated Republican Sean Cooksey , the general counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Mo. )
.
Trump did not nominate a Democratic counterpart .
Instead , he tapped independent Shana Broussard , whose selection was pushed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three Republicans , two independents and one Democrat if the three nominees are confirmed , Weintraub and independent Commissioner Steven Walther have long since exceeded their six-year terms and could be replaced if another appointment is made for their seats .
If the confirmations move forward , the makeup of the FEC would likely result in similar gridlock as when the commission still had its quorum .
Last year , Weintraub warned in response to questions from House Democrats that the panel blocking enforcement of election laws had sapped staff morale .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persist as long as the Federal Election Commission lacks a majority of members who are committed to robust law enforcement and effective policymaking , ” she said .
“ The Federal Election Commission was already broken , but now it is in shambles and can ’ t even perform the most basic law-enforcement functions , ” Meredith McGehee , the head of the campaign finance nonprofit Issue One , said in a statement .
“ After nearly 80 million Americans voted to elect former Vice President Joe Biden to serve as the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 68 days until Inauguration Day , ” Herrig said in his letter , “ it is distressing to see that President Donald Trump and his allies could seat additional biased commissioners to the FEC in just a few short weeks .
”

The FEC would have three Republicans, two independents and only one Democrat if the Senate moves forward.
Senate Republicans plan to move forward with three Federal Election Commission (FEC) nominations next week, raising concerns that the party is attempting to pack the panel with “partisans” after blocking it from enforcing election laws for more than a year.
The FEC has been without a quorum for most of the last 14 months, preventing it from holding meetings and enforcing laws throughout nearly the entire presidential campaign. The commission faces a backlog of more than 350 matters, according to Ellen Weintraub, the lone Democratic commissioner.
Shortly ahead of the election, the Senate Rules Committee announced plans to take up the nominations of two Republicans and an independent next week, which a watchdog group warned would stack the panel with “biased” commissioners and result in “gridlock” that would leave key cases undecided.
“For the sake of fair and functional oversight of our campaign finance system, the Senate simply cannot indulge the soon-to-be-ex-President Trump’s scheme to quietly pack the FEC with partisans and let bad actors off the hook indefinitely,” Kyle Herrig, the president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon in a statement.
Herrig wrote a letter to Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and ranking member Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., warning of the “growing threat of harmful politicization” of the FEC by the Trump administration. In it, he called for the committee to block the “ideologically-driven” nominations.
“The Trump administration’s early and continuous undoing of the FEC has only changed course in recent weeks, in the closing days of an election cycle,” Herrig warned in the letter, which was shared exclusively with Salon.
The commission is designed to be evenly bipartisan with three Republicans and three Democrats. It currently has one Republican, one Democrat and one independent. The president typically nominates one Republican and one Democrat to fill vacant slots at the same time. But Trump, shortly ahead of the election, nominated two Republicans and one Democratic-backed independent after pushing through the confirmation of another lone Republican last year.
“In addition to the timing of FEC commissioner nominations and confirmation hearings, the administration’s disregard for creating a fair and equitable makeup of commissioners for the FEC is cause for grave concern,” Herrig wrote to the senators. “The traditional standard has been that two ideologically contrasting nominees are presented for a vote to the FEC at the same time. And yet, earlier this year, the Trump administration and Senate Republicans pushed through the nomination of James Trainor — a former attorney for the Trump campaign itself.”
Moving forward with the nominations of another Republican without a Democratic counterpart and a previously-negotiated Republican-Independent pairing would “undoubtedly create gridlock amongst FEC commissioners, essentially leaving the FEC in the same place it is today,” Herrig wrote, “unable to issue clear, decisive opinions on the critically important issues that come before the commission.”
The refusal of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to fill the three vacant seats left the commission toothless during the presidential campaign. Brendan Fischer, the director of federal reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, alleged earlier this year that McConnell was trying to “neuter the FEC” in hopes that he could get “three ideological opponents of campaign finance on the FEC” so he “can basically undermine the law from within.”
The commission has not even been able to meet to discuss complaints, including one from the Campaign Legal Center accusing the Trump campaign of disguising $170 million in campaign spending by “laundering” the money through companies run by former campaign manager Brad Parscale or formed by Trump campaign attorneys.
The nonpartisan watchdog also called on the FEC to impose more limits on leadership PACs, which are used to fund expenses that cannot be legally funded by campaign committees and are often used to fund other candidates, after the Trump team solicited donations for what it claimed was a “recount” effort but will largely go toward a new Trump leadership PAC instead.
Another complaint by Rep. Bill Parscale (D-N.J.), called on the FEC to investigate whether the Trump campaign had violated campaign finance rules by failing to report unpaid debts stemming from his campaign rallies.
Trump, who spent months ahead of the election laying the groundwork to sow doubt in the results before ultimately losing to President-elect Joe Biden, has announced a flurry of legal moves to try to reverse the popular vote in multiple states based on unfounded allegations of fraud and irregularities.
Though numerous election officials from both parties have said there is zero evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities, the president’s claims have been echoed by Trainor, the Republican head of the commission who was confirmed without a Democratic counterpart last year.
“I do believe that there is voter fraud taking place in these places,” Trainor told the right-wing Newsmax TV last week, describing the president’s legal challenges as “very valid allegations.” But most legal scholars have said the claims are “meritless” and “frivolous.”
Trump waited until shortly before the election to nominate new commissioners.
In September, the president nominated Republican Allen Dickerson without a Democratic counterpart. Dickerson, who has long defended the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which injected hundreds of millions in dark money into elections, currently serves as the legal director of the Institute for Free Speech, a group funded by Charles Koch and other prominent conservative billionaires.
Dickerson has argued that “corporations have long had First Amendment rights, and for good reason” in defending corporate money in elections. He also once joined a lawsuit against then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris for requesting a Koch-backed group reveal its donors.
In October, Trump nominated Republican Sean Cooksey, the general counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Trump did not nominate a Democratic counterpart. Instead, he tapped independent Shana Broussard, whose selection was pushed by Klobuchar.
Though the panel would have three Republicans, two independents and one Democrat if the three nominees are confirmed, Weintraub and independent Commissioner Steven Walther have long since exceeded their six-year terms and could be replaced if another appointment is made for their seats.
If the confirmations move forward, the makeup of the FEC would likely result in similar gridlock as when the commission still had its quorum.
Last year, Weintraub warned in response to questions from House Democrats that the panel blocking enforcement of election laws had sapped staff morale.
“This is a morale-killing problem that will persist as long as the Federal Election Commission lacks a majority of members who are committed to robust law enforcement and effective policymaking,” she said.
And campaign finance watchdogs agree.
“The Federal Election Commission was already broken, but now it is in shambles and can’t even perform the most basic law-enforcement functions,” Meredith McGehee, the head of the campaign finance nonprofit Issue One, said in a statement.
“After nearly 80 million Americans voted to elect former Vice President Joe Biden to serve as the next president of the United States and with just 68 days until Inauguration Day,” Herrig said in his letter, “it is distressing to see that President Donald Trump and his allies could seat additional biased commissioners to the FEC in just a few short weeks.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-14--Yes, 55 Percent of White Women Voted for Trump. No, I’m Not Surprised.

Maya Angelou once said , “ When people show you who they are , believe them.
” Her lesson stemmed from the notion that people know themselves better than any other individual ever could .
When people express beliefs or exhibit behaviors that relate to their own commitments and ethics , we should take them seriously .
It ’ s a wonder , then , why every election season , we express collective shock that a majority of white women voters have chosen patriarchy , white supremacy and anti-progressive values once again .
In 2016 , the big takeaway was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump , according to exit polls , helping cement his victory .
But , in 2020 , white women voters surpassed their 2016 levels of support as , according to exit polls , 55 percent of white women turned out to vote for the president who was recorded saying that men should “ grab ‘ em by the pussy , ” who has referred to women as “ horseface ” and a “ dog , ” and who remains under intense scrutiny for the 19 sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s time to start taking this massive failure to side with marginalized people as an indication of a widespread political orientation among white women , rather than as a shocking aberration .
As the majority of white women continue to support candidates whose policies stand in opposition to the concerns and experiences of vulnerable populations in the United States , there remains a proclivity among progressives to protect them from criticism .
This stems from a long historical trend and practice that allows for white women to actively engage in white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-Reconstruction era , many Black Americans , especially men , were systematically targeted and hunted by white mobs in the name of “ protecting ” white women from the myth of the “ brutish , sexually-uncontrollable ” Black man .
The primary argument for lynching in the United States was about protecting white women from sexual violence .
In 1892 , Ida B .
Wells , the most vocal and avid anti-lynching organizer in history , wrote in an editorial that , “ nobody in this section of the country believes the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women.
” But whether people believed the lie didn ’ t keep mobs from murdering Black people , especially Black men , in cold blood .
There were no limits to the macabre violence .
In 1955 , 14-year-old Chicago resident Emmett Till was brutally lynched while visiting family in Mississippi because a white woman named Carolyn Bryant Donham claimed he grabbed and threatened her at a local grocery store .
Three days later , the woman ’ s husband and brother abducted Till .
They forced him to “ carry a 75-pound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tallahatchie River and ordered him to take off his clothes .
The two men then beat him nearly to death , gouged out his eye , shot him in the head and then threw his body , tied to the cotton-gin fan with barbed wire , into the river.
” Bryant Donham later admitted that she lied about the events that led to Till ’ s murder .
To this day , it is not totally clear how many cases of the more than 4,000 lynchings in the United States were spawned because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to white men to inflict all manner of violence on Black people .
What is known , though , is that white women remain stationed at the nexus of white supremacy , gender minority status and the privilege of perceived faultlessness , a position that has garnered them immense power both politically and socially .
Political Solidarity Is an Action , Not an Idea It ’ s not like 2016 was the first time that white women cleaved to a Republican Party and candidate that didn ’ t represent feminist values and ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality for a Democratic presidential candidate twice since 1952 : once in 1964 for Lyndon B. Johnson and in 1996 for Bill Clinton .
And only 43 percent of white women voters turned out in 2016 to elect the first woman president of the United States , another fact we haven ’ t discussed enough .
Political scientist Jane Junn explains that , “ The elephant in the room is white and female , and she has been standing there since 1952 .
This result has been hiding in plain sight , obscured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Democratic than men.
” While voting is just one aspect of the U.S. political process , it is inherently tethered to the sorts of social welfare policies , institutional changes and political outcomes of minoritized people .
And white women ’ s voting behavior tells us what the majority of them are prioritizing .
However , because so many people believe that women are inherently democratic voters and oriented toward justice , they don ’ t actually hold white women accountable to being democratic and oriented toward justice .
While safety pins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become popular markers of white feminist “ allyship , ” they also signal the performative nature and limitations of white women ’ s commitments to actually effecting change for those who most need it .
Moving forward , we will have to demand more of white women than costume changes and props .
Showing up to protests is simply not enough .
White women have to disabuse themselves en masse of the notion that they are inherently good .
They have to put themselves in harm ’ s way , disrupt the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacy and defer to those who are more vulnerable than themselves .
We can ’ t keep being surprised when white women choose whiteness over everything else .
Rather , let ’ s shift our energy toward holding them accountable , acknowledging the failures of mainstream white feminism and pushing until the veil of protectionism falls away completely .

Maya Angelou once said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.” Her lesson stemmed from the notion that people know themselves better than any other individual ever could. When people express beliefs or exhibit behaviors that relate to their own commitments and ethics, we should take them seriously. It’s a wonder, then, why every election season, we express collective shock that a majority of white women voters have chosen patriarchy, white supremacy and anti-progressive values once again.
In 2016, the big takeaway was that 53 percent of white women voters cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump, according to exit polls, helping cement his victory. But, in 2020, white women voters surpassed their 2016 levels of support as, according to exit polls, 55 percent of white women turned out to vote for the president who was recorded saying that men should “grab ‘em by the pussy,” who has referred to women as “horseface” and a “dog,” and who remains under intense scrutiny for the 19 sexual assault allegations levied against him. Maybe it’s time to start taking this massive failure to side with marginalized people as an indication of a widespread political orientation among white women, rather than as a shocking aberration.
Protectionism and White Femininity
As the majority of white women continue to support candidates whose policies stand in opposition to the concerns and experiences of vulnerable populations in the United States, there remains a proclivity among progressives to protect them from criticism.
This stems from a long historical trend and practice that allows for white women to actively engage in white supremacy while feigning helplessness. In the post-Reconstruction era, many Black Americans, especially men, were systematically targeted and hunted by white mobs in the name of “protecting” white women from the myth of the “brutish, sexually-uncontrollable” Black man.
The primary argument for lynching in the United States was about protecting white women from sexual violence. In 1892, Ida B. Wells, the most vocal and avid anti-lynching organizer in history, wrote in an editorial that, “nobody in this section of the country believes the old threadbare lie that Negro men rape white women.” But whether people believed the lie didn’t keep mobs from murdering Black people, especially Black men, in cold blood.
White women have only voted in plurality for a Democratic presidential candidate twice since 1952.
There were no limits to the macabre violence. In 1955, 14-year-old Chicago resident Emmett Till was brutally lynched while visiting family in Mississippi because a white woman named Carolyn Bryant Donham claimed he grabbed and threatened her at a local grocery store. Three days later, the woman’s husband and brother abducted Till. They forced him to “carry a 75-pound cotton-gin fan to the bank of the Tallahatchie River and ordered him to take off his clothes. The two men then beat him nearly to death, gouged out his eye, shot him in the head and then threw his body, tied to the cotton-gin fan with barbed wire, into the river.” Bryant Donham later admitted that she lied about the events that led to Till’s murder.
To this day, it is not totally clear how many cases of the more than 4,000 lynchings in the United States were spawned because white women used their femininity and proximity to white men to inflict all manner of violence on Black people. What is known, though, is that white women remain stationed at the nexus of white supremacy, gender minority status and the privilege of perceived faultlessness, a position that has garnered them immense power both politically and socially.
Political Solidarity Is an Action, Not an Idea
It’s not like 2016 was the first time that white women cleaved to a Republican Party and candidate that didn’t represent feminist values and ethics. White women have only voted in plurality for a Democratic presidential candidate twice since 1952: once in 1964 for Lyndon B. Johnson and in 1996 for Bill Clinton. And only 43 percent of white women voters turned out in 2016 to elect the first woman president of the United States, another fact we haven’t discussed enough.
Political scientist Jane Junn explains that, “The elephant in the room is white and female, and she has been standing there since 1952. This result has been hiding in plain sight, obscured by a normative bias that women are more Democratic than men.” While voting is just one aspect of the U.S. political process, it is inherently tethered to the sorts of social welfare policies, institutional changes and political outcomes of minoritized people. And white women’s voting behavior tells us what the majority of them are prioritizing.
However, because so many people believe that women are inherently democratic voters and oriented toward justice, they don’t actually hold white women accountable to being democratic and oriented toward justice.
Showing up to protests is simply not enough.
While safety pins and “pink pussy hats” have become popular markers of white feminist “allyship,” they also signal the performative nature and limitations of white women’s commitments to actually effecting change for those who most need it. Moving forward, we will have to demand more of white women than costume changes and props. Showing up to protests is simply not enough. White women have to disabuse themselves en masse of the notion that they are inherently good. They have to put themselves in harm’s way, disrupt the status quo of their own complicity in white supremacy and defer to those who are more vulnerable than themselves.
We can’t keep being surprised when white women choose whiteness over everything else. Rather, let’s shift our energy toward holding them accountable, acknowledging the failures of mainstream white feminism and pushing until the veil of protectionism falls away completely.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-14--Women and Students Are Leading Thailand’s Fight for Democracy

A mass movement for democracy has swept Thailand since July .
Led by a new generation of students and workers , protests have taken place throughout the country .
They are fighting for a profound transformation of Thai society .
Thai socialist Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a former associate professor of politics at Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok .
He was forced into exile in Britain , after being charged with lèse-majesté ( insulting the monarchy ) in late 2008 because of his book , A Coup For the Rich , which criticized the 2006 military coup .
In this interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists across the world can build solidarity with the Thai struggle .
Ashley Smith : Thailand is in the midst of a massive uprising against the government , military and monarchy .
What are the underlying causes of these protests and what is the movement demanding ?
Giles Ji Ungpakorn : The movement is led by young people , mostly students in secondary school and university .
But it has attracted older ordinary working people ; they ’ ve joined in very large numbers .
Some of the demonstrations in Bangkok have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised three central demands .
The first one is the resignation of the prime minister , Prayut Chan-o-cha .
He is a former military general that seized power in 2014 in a military coup .
He came to power through fixed elections last year .
The second demand is the complete re-writing of the constitution .
It was drafted by the military and is not a democratic constitution .
The third demand is the reform of the monarchy , specifically stripping it of new powers it was granted in the new constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courage of young people , especially young women .
They don ’ t carry the baggage of people who protested 10 or 20 years ago and were crushed , some of them brutally shot down in the streets by the military .
The young people are fearless and determined to fight to democratize Thailand .
They are particularly angry about the behavior of King Vajiralongkorn .
He spends all his time in Germany with his harem .
He treats women in an appalling fashion .
And even though he is the richest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to try to accumulate even more wealth .
What role has the pandemic and economic crisis played in driving wider layers of people to join the protests ?
The pandemic mainly affected the economy .
The actual number of cases and deaths is quite low .
But the economy has been dramatically impacted because Thailand is so dependent on the world economy for export , services and tourism .
All of these have been severely impacted by the global recession .
That ’ s why young people are worried about their futures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope for getting good jobs , and it ’ s one of the reasons why they show no fear in the demonstrations .
They don ’ t see what they have to lose .
The older generation actually share the frustrations and anger that the young people have .
Millions of Thai people are very unhappy about what ’ s happening in the country .
They hate their economic conditions and despise the military ’ s domination of politics , fixing election after election .
That ’ s why the parties that oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the votes in last year ’ s election .
That ’ s why the military had to fix it to ensure Prayut Chan-o-cha won .
This anger and resistance among young people , of course , is not something unique to Thailand .
It is a global phenomenon .
In the U.S. presidential election , it was young people who voted against Donald Trump .
It ’ s young people who are organizing the Black Lives Matter protests .
It ’ s young people who are rising up in Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people who are organizing the global climate strike .
What is the nature of the Thai state and ruling class that the movement is fighting ?
How has the government , military , monarchy and their right-wing supporters responded to the uprising ?
At the center of the Thai ruling class is the military .
It has played a central role in the country ’ s politics since the 1930s .
They have been supported by the middle class , especially since the protests in 2005 and 2006 against then-elected prime minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that support , they overthrew Thaksin Shinawatra .
But the military is not all powerful .
There have been at least two successful mass uprisings against military governments , one in the 1970s and another in the 1990s .
Another important part of the Thai ruling class is the capitalists just like in every other country .
They have large conglomerates that dominate the economy like the Charoen Pokphand ( CP ) Group as well as business moguls like Shinawatra .
Finally , there is the monarchy .
Most of the activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back an absolute monarchy .
They see him as all powerful .
This is a complete myth .
Like his father , King Bhumibol , Vajiralongkorn is only on the throne because the military wants him to be there .
The military in fact holds all the power .
They use the monarchy in order to justify everything and strike fear into people ’ s minds .
The monarchy , like those in Europe and elsewhere , is a symbol the ruling class relies on to justify social inequalities as the “ natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myths like there are people who are born to rule and others who are born to be ruled .
The monarchy itself doesn ’ t have any power .
The current king spends most of his time in Germany living like a playboy and plays almost no role in decision making .
Contrast this with actual dictators ; they rarely leave their countries because they fear they ’ ll be overthrown when they ’ re abroad .
Then there is the character of this particular king .
He ’ s proved himself completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Channel 4 TV recently managed to corner him for an interview .
They asked him some questions about the protests .
His response was quite typical .
He couldn ’ t string a sentence together .
The idea that this man could somehow wield power is quite ludicrous .
The monarchy is a powerful symbol that is controlled by the iron fist of the military .
This is important for the movement to grasp so that activists know what must be done to bring about democracy .
We have to overthrow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to this Thai ruling class and its institutions .
They have responded to the movement by threatening the protesters , enacting emergency laws and banning demonstrations .
But young people simply ignored all of this and continued the struggle .
The regime then deployed the police to attack the protests .
They used water cannons that shot water laced with chemical irritants onto the crowds in the hopes of driving them off the streets .
But that only made people angrier .
At the moment , the ruling class and military seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to burn itself out .
This is a real danger .
If movements don ’ t go forward , they tend to go backwards .
Some journalists and activists have said that there is a possibility of yet another military coup to stabilize the country .
Is that a possibility ?
I am always hesitant to say that a coup is unlikely in Thailand .
In 2006 , I told a class of my students that there wouldn ’ t be a coup .
And then the next day , the military overthrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , because there have been so many military coups , people in Thailand are always worried about another one .
But the question for the military is : What would they achieve by overthrowing the current government ?
They could stage a coup or just shut down parliament and rule by decree .
But they almost rule by decree anyway .
A faction of the military might be tempted to overthrow the government , but I do not see any evidence of that at the moment .
In reality , the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Prayut Chan-o-cha and his government .
I think they believe that the current façade or charade of democratic rule is their best option right now .
What are the kinds of social groups and classes involved in the struggle ?
What have been the kind of predominant strategies and tactics of the movement ?
What do you think the movement needs to do to take the struggle forward and win ?
As I said before , the movement is led by young people , mostly students , and especially women .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross-section of classes .
It ’ s important to remember that the biggest class in Thailand is the working class .
The students are ordinary , working-class kids .
They may be the children of white-collar workers , but they ’ re still working class .
Some of them may be from middle-class backgrounds .
This is a new development .
In the past , the middle class in Thailand has tended to support the military and monarchy .
The movement has attracted large sections of the working class .
There have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , for example , on the eastern seaboard in Chon Buri and to the north of Bangkok at Rangsit and also in Saraburi .
These have been organized by labor militants , but they remain a minority in the organized labor movement .
Workers turn out to protests , of course , but not as organized forces at this point .
The strategy and tactics of the movement are very interesting .
Since many leaders of the movement have been arrested and now face multiple charges , they are emphasizing that everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-organization of the movement ’ s rank and file .
They stress that the movement is democratic and that no one is instructed from above .
This is a very good thing .
It ’ s a breath of fresh air .
There is a downside to this , though .
It makes it difficult to organize and strategize , because they don ’ t have a collective , elected leadership able to coordinate the struggle .
It ’ s very decentralized , with all sorts of people organizing protests in different areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police harder , which is good .
But you can ’ t go on organizing flash mobs , week after week , with the hope that the government will just fall .
If the movement is going to overthrow the military , it must make the country ungovernable .
There are only two ways of doing that .
One is rioting in the streets .
That would lead to terrible bloodshed .
The military would come in and shoot people down as they have done in the past .
The more preferable option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militant trade unionists get together and visit organized workers in factories , offices , transportation hubs , and so on , and talk to them about the possibility of strike action to shut down the economy .
Strike action is the best way to make Thailand ungovernable .
We ’ ve seen how strikes in other countries have played a crucial role in winning reforms and fundamentally social change .
Unfortunately , people have not yet adopted this strategy .
What has been the role of the left and political parties ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thailand .
I tried to build a small grouping of organized socialists before I was forced to leave the country .
That organization fell apart under the coup regime .
Today , though , there are a growing number of individuals who regard themselves as left-wing .
They need to get together and talk about forming some kind of party .
They need an organized group of people in all the different arenas of the movement to win the argument for a turn to the working class and strike action .
Uncoordinated individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement in Hong Kong had any impact on the Thai movement ?
There are links between the Hong Kong activists and the Thai activists .
One of the things that the current movement has learned from Hong Kong and the recent history of Thai struggle is that it ’ s dangerous to occupy areas overnight .
The previous Red Shirt movement , which was a large pro-democracy movement that arose 10 years ago , occupied key sites in Bangkok for days .
The Thai military took advantage of that tactic and massacred activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at all costs , the current movement gathers people in large numbers , people make speeches , and then the crowd disperses and goes home .
That is quite sensible .
But such actions must be supplemented with strikes to win .
How have regional powers as well as the U.S. and China responded to the uprising ?
What impact will the movement have on similar struggles in the region ?
The U.S. and China have not taken a public position .
The two powers are rivals and each want the Thai @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime is exploiting this situation by currying favor with both .
There are conspiracy theories that say the U.S. is backing the demonstrations .
This is nonsense .
The demonstrations are self-organized by young people for their own very good reasons .
They are nobody ’ s puppet .
The U.S. government under Trump is hardly in favor of overthrowing the Thai state .
It wants stability and this will not change with the incoming Biden administration .
The Chinese government also wants stability .
It successfully pressured the Thai government to ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wong , who had planned to go and meet with Thai activists .
The Chinese state doesn ’ t want the struggle in Hong Kong to spread out to the region then and back into Hong Kong .
The movement is very important for the region .
The people in Vietnam , Malaysia , the Philippines and other countries are closely following events in Thailand .
If the protesters win , their victory would send shock waves through Southeast Asia , giving people inspiration to fight their own regimes .
What are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re at a crucial moment right now .
If the movement doesn ’ t increase the action one way or another to make Thailand ungovernable , then I fear it will end in a shoddy compromise .
What it is likely is that only one of the demands will be met , but not met in full .
That will likely be the one about the military ’ s constitution .
I think that the ruling class is prepared to amend the constitution .
That is not actually what the people want .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rewritten .
The government will try and lure activists into accepting a rotten compromise on this demand and will ignore the other two — for the prime minister to resign and the monarchy to be reformed .
If the movement ends up kicking the ball into parliament and letting the parliamentarians sort it out then there will be a very shoddy compromise .
Almost everyone in the current parliament would be happy with that result .
But the people will not be .
What can activists outside of Thailand do to build solidarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can do is call for the release of all political prisoners .
But , more importantly , activists throughout the world , especially in the United States , should build their own struggle to show to Thai activists that it ’ s possible to win .
For example , the Black Lives Matter struggle has been very inspirational to people in Thailand and throughout the world .
If the Black Lives Matter activists turn toward organizing the power of the working class as they have done to some extent , they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thailand .
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity .

A mass movement for democracy has swept Thailand since July. Led by a new generation of students and workers, protests have taken place throughout the country. They are fighting for a profound transformation of Thai society. Thai socialist Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a former associate professor of politics at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. He was forced into exile in Britain, after being charged with lèse-majesté (insulting the monarchy) in late 2008 because of his book, A Coup For the Rich, which criticized the 2006 military coup. In this interview, Ungpakorn discusses the uprising and how activists across the world can build solidarity with the Thai struggle.
Ashley Smith: Thailand is in the midst of a massive uprising against the government, military and monarchy. What are the underlying causes of these protests and what is the movement demanding?
Giles Ji Ungpakorn: The movement is led by young people, mostly students in secondary school and university. But it has attracted older ordinary working people; they’ve joined in very large numbers. Some of the demonstrations in Bangkok have been over 100,000 people.
The movement has raised three central demands. The first one is the resignation of the prime minister, Prayut Chan-o-cha. He is a former military general that seized power in 2014 in a military coup. He came to power through fixed elections last year.
The second demand is the complete re-writing of the constitution. It was drafted by the military and is not a democratic constitution. The third demand is the reform of the monarchy, specifically stripping it of new powers it was granted in the new constitution.
What is striking in these protests is the courage of young people, especially young women. They don’t carry the baggage of people who protested 10 or 20 years ago and were crushed, some of them brutally shot down in the streets by the military. The young people are fearless and determined to fight to democratize Thailand.
They are particularly angry about the behavior of King Vajiralongkorn. He spends all his time in Germany with his harem. He treats women in an appalling fashion. And even though he is the richest man in Thailand, his greed drives him to try to accumulate even more wealth.
What role has the pandemic and economic crisis played in driving wider layers of people to join the protests?
The pandemic mainly affected the economy. The actual number of cases and deaths is quite low. But the economy has been dramatically impacted because Thailand is so dependent on the world economy for export, services and tourism. All of these have been severely impacted by the global recession.
That’s why young people are worried about their futures. They don’t see much hope for getting good jobs, and it’s one of the reasons why they show no fear in the demonstrations. They don’t see what they have to lose.
The older generation actually share the frustrations and anger that the young people have. Millions of Thai people are very unhappy about what’s happening in the country.
They hate their economic conditions and despise the military’s domination of politics, fixing election after election. That’s why the parties that oppose the military actually won the largest number of the votes in last year’s election. That’s why the military had to fix it to ensure Prayut Chan-o-cha won.
This anger and resistance among young people, of course, is not something unique to Thailand. It is a global phenomenon. In the U.S. presidential election, it was young people who voted against Donald Trump. It’s young people who are organizing the Black Lives Matter protests. It’s young people who are rising up in Hong Kong, Chile and Nigeria. It’s young people who are organizing the global climate strike.
What is the nature of the Thai state and ruling class that the movement is fighting? How has the government, military, monarchy and their right-wing supporters responded to the uprising?
At the center of the Thai ruling class is the military. It has played a central role in the country’s politics since the 1930s. They have been supported by the middle class, especially since the protests in 2005 and 2006 against then-elected prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.
On the basis of that support, they overthrew Thaksin Shinawatra. But the military is not all powerful. There have been at least two successful mass uprisings against military governments, one in the 1970s and another in the 1990s.
Another important part of the Thai ruling class is the capitalists just like in every other country. They have large conglomerates that dominate the economy like the Charoen Pokphand (CP) Group as well as business moguls like Shinawatra.
Finally, there is the monarchy. Most of the activists believe that King Vajiralongkorn wants to bring back an absolute monarchy. They see him as all powerful.
This is a complete myth. Like his father, King Bhumibol, Vajiralongkorn is only on the throne because the military wants him to be there. The military in fact holds all the power. They use the monarchy in order to justify everything and strike fear into people’s minds.
The monarchy, like those in Europe and elsewhere, is a symbol the ruling class relies on to justify social inequalities as the “natural order” of things. It ratifies myths like there are people who are born to rule and others who are born to be ruled.
The monarchy itself doesn’t have any power. The current king spends most of his time in Germany living like a playboy and plays almost no role in decision making. Contrast this with actual dictators; they rarely leave their countries because they fear they’ll be overthrown when they’re abroad.
Then there is the character of this particular king. He’s proved himself completely incapable of ruling anything. Britain’s Channel 4 TV recently managed to corner him for an interview. They asked him some questions about the protests. His response was quite typical. He couldn’t string a sentence together. The idea that this man could somehow wield power is quite ludicrous. The monarchy is a powerful symbol that is controlled by the iron fist of the military.
This is important for the movement to grasp so that activists know what must be done to bring about democracy. We have to overthrow the military.
The movement is a direct threat to this Thai ruling class and its institutions. They have responded to the movement by threatening the protesters, enacting emergency laws and banning demonstrations. But young people simply ignored all of this and continued the struggle.
The regime then deployed the police to attack the protests. They used water cannons that shot water laced with chemical irritants onto the crowds in the hopes of driving them off the streets. But that only made people angrier.
At the moment, the ruling class and military seem to be waiting and hoping for movement to burn itself out. This is a real danger. If movements don’t go forward, they tend to go backwards.
Some journalists and activists have said that there is a possibility of yet another military coup to stabilize the country. Is that a possibility?
I am always hesitant to say that a coup is unlikely in Thailand. In 2006, I told a class of my students that there wouldn’t be a coup. And then the next day, the military overthrew Thaksin Shinawatra’s government.
That said, because there have been so many military coups, people in Thailand are always worried about another one. But the question for the military is: What would they achieve by overthrowing the current government?
They could stage a coup or just shut down parliament and rule by decree. But they almost rule by decree anyway. A faction of the military might be tempted to overthrow the government, but I do not see any evidence of that at the moment.
In reality, the military is already in power. They rule through Prayut Chan-o-cha and his government. I think they believe that the current façade or charade of democratic rule is their best option right now.
What are the kinds of social groups and classes involved in the struggle? What have been the kind of predominant strategies and tactics of the movement? What do you think the movement needs to do to take the struggle forward and win?
As I said before, the movement is led by young people, mostly students, and especially women. The students as a group come from a cross-section of classes.
It’s important to remember that the biggest class in Thailand is the working class. The students are ordinary, working-class kids. They may be the children of white-collar workers, but they’re still working class.
Some of them may be from middle-class backgrounds. This is a new development. In the past, the middle class in Thailand has tended to support the military and monarchy.
The movement has attracted large sections of the working class. There have been trade unions involved in some of the protests, for example, on the eastern seaboard in Chon Buri and to the north of Bangkok at Rangsit and also in Saraburi.
These have been organized by labor militants, but they remain a minority in the organized labor movement. Workers turn out to protests, of course, but not as organized forces at this point.
The strategy and tactics of the movement are very interesting. Since many leaders of the movement have been arrested and now face multiple charges, they are emphasizing that everyone is a leader.
They highlight the self-organization of the movement’s rank and file. They stress that the movement is democratic and that no one is instructed from above. This is a very good thing. It’s a breath of fresh air.
There is a downside to this, though. It makes it difficult to organize and strategize, because they don’t have a collective, elected leadership able to coordinate the struggle. It’s very decentralized, with all sorts of people organizing protests in different areas.
That makes the job of the police harder, which is good. But you can’t go on organizing flash mobs, week after week, with the hope that the government will just fall. If the movement is going to overthrow the military, it must make the country ungovernable.
There are only two ways of doing that. One is rioting in the streets. That would lead to terrible bloodshed. The military would come in and shoot people down as they have done in the past.
The more preferable option is that the young people and the militant trade unionists get together and visit organized workers in factories, offices, transportation hubs, and so on, and talk to them about the possibility of strike action to shut down the economy.
Strike action is the best way to make Thailand ungovernable. We’ve seen how strikes in other countries have played a crucial role in winning reforms and fundamentally social change. Unfortunately, people have not yet adopted this strategy.
What has been the role of the left and political parties?
There isn’t an organized left in Thailand. I tried to build a small grouping of organized socialists before I was forced to leave the country. That organization fell apart under the coup regime.
Today, though, there are a growing number of individuals who regard themselves as left-wing. They need to get together and talk about forming some kind of party.
They need an organized group of people in all the different arenas of the movement to win the argument for a turn to the working class and strike action. Uncoordinated individuals cannot do that.
Has the movement in Hong Kong had any impact on the Thai movement?
There are links between the Hong Kong activists and the Thai activists. One of the things that the current movement has learned from Hong Kong and the recent history of Thai struggle is that it’s dangerous to occupy areas overnight.
The previous Red Shirt movement, which was a large pro-democracy movement that arose 10 years ago, occupied key sites in Bangkok for days. The Thai military took advantage of that tactic and massacred activists in cold blood.
Wanting to avoid that at all costs, the current movement gathers people in large numbers, people make speeches, and then the crowd disperses and goes home. That is quite sensible. But such actions must be supplemented with strikes to win.
How have regional powers as well as the U.S. and China responded to the uprising? What impact will the movement have on similar struggles in the region?
The U.S. and China have not taken a public position. The two powers are rivals and each want the Thai state in their camp. The Thai regime is exploiting this situation by currying favor with both.
There are conspiracy theories that say the U.S. is backing the demonstrations. This is nonsense. The demonstrations are self-organized by young people for their own very good reasons. They are nobody’s puppet.
The U.S. government under Trump is hardly in favor of overthrowing the Thai state. It wants stability and this will not change with the incoming Biden administration. The Chinese government also wants stability.
It successfully pressured the Thai government to ban a visit by Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong, who had planned to go and meet with Thai activists. The Chinese state doesn’t want the struggle in Hong Kong to spread out to the region then and back into Hong Kong.
The movement is very important for the region. The people in Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and other countries are closely following events in Thailand. If the protesters win, their victory would send shock waves through Southeast Asia, giving people inspiration to fight their own regimes.
What are the prospects for the movement?
We’re at a crucial moment right now. If the movement doesn’t increase the action one way or another to make Thailand ungovernable, then I fear it will end in a shoddy compromise.
What it is likely is that only one of the demands will be met, but not met in full. That will likely be the one about the military’s constitution. I think that the ruling class is prepared to amend the constitution.
That is not actually what the people want. They want the whole constitution scrapped and rewritten. The government will try and lure activists into accepting a rotten compromise on this demand and will ignore the other two — for the prime minister to resign and the monarchy to be reformed.
If the movement ends up kicking the ball into parliament and letting the parliamentarians sort it out then there will be a very shoddy compromise. Almost everyone in the current parliament would be happy with that result. But the people will not be.
What can activists outside of Thailand do to build solidarity with the Thai struggle?
One thing people can do is call for the release of all political prisoners. But, more importantly, activists throughout the world, especially in the United States, should build their own struggle to show to Thai activists that it’s possible to win.
For example, the Black Lives Matter struggle has been very inspirational to people in Thailand and throughout the world. If the Black Lives Matter activists turn toward organizing the power of the working class as they have done to some extent, they will provide a great example for activists in Thailand.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.