thenation--2020-09-30--We Still Aren’t Prepared for the Fact That Trump May Steal the Election

Multiple times a day , people will text or direct-message me a news story , and ask me , “ What can we do ?
” It ’ s usually the last question I ’ m asked on any radio or television appearance .
My mother asks me the question nightly , only she ’ s my mom , so it sounds like more of a demand than a question .
People who have been paying attention understand that we ’ re losing .
They get that the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is functionally unstoppable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an infrastructure in place to suppress the vote in the upcoming election—or get his handpicked justices to hand him the election , or have Electoral College voters steal the election , or even use military force to keep himself in power after losing the election .
They know the document leak that shows that Trump has been avoiding paying taxes , or outright defrauding the American government , will cost him no tangible support among his base .
Everybody honest knows that last night ’ s debate didn ’ t matter to most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetence have contributed to over 206,000 American deaths ; if you ’ re still willing to vote for Trump , there ’ s nothing he can say in a two-hour “ debate ” that ’ s going to change your mind .
What ’ s harder for people to wrap their minds around is the fact that we ’ ve already lost .
I know I ’ m supposed to say that “ the 2020 election is the most important election of our lifetime , ” but it ’ s not .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our lifetime , and we , as a nation , failed .
The media failed , and still fails , to cover Trump accurately .
The left failed to get enthused by an imperfect candidate .
The right failed to demonstrate any moral or intellectual integrity .
Over 100 million people failed to show up .
I failed to help enough people understand what was coming , because I understood the inherent danger of John Roberts ’ s disastrous decision to gut the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , our last chance at victory .
It ’ s not an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past .
This electoral battle is more like the Battle of Dunkirk .
We ’ re fighting for the chance to retreat .
We ’ re fighting for the chance to fight another day .
Even if we “ win , ” it will take years to regain what we ’ ve lost , and some people will never get back what ’ s been taken .
A University of Washington study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this year , double where we are now .
And it ’ s not as if the deaths will stop on January 1 , or on January 20 if Joe Biden wins .
Some estimates suggest that 1.3 million Americans would have to die to achieve the mythic goal of “ herd immunity , ” and Republicans seem hell-bent on killing every last one of them .
Republican governors and culture warriors will not stop spreading their misinformation just because Biden is president .
And that ’ s the “ rosy scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins and somehow assumes office .
But right now , you ’ d be a fool to believe that Biden will become president just because he wins the most votes or wins the most votes in enough states to give him an Electoral College victory .
We already know that Trump will contest the mail-in ballots that will overwhelmingly vote him out of office .
We already know that Trump thinks the Supreme Court is a tool to help him contest these ballots .
We ’ ve heard of devious plans to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of electors who will go against the popular will in their states , if necessary .
People seem to have largely forgotten that every shred of foreign interference deployed for Trump ’ s benefit in the 2016 election is being used against our system again in 2020 .
And , seeing as Trump has not committed to the peaceful transfer of power , we would be wise to assume that at least some Secret Service offices and military commanders may be willing to fight to keep him in office .
During the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white supremacists , then ordered his supporters to go to the polls and “ watch , ” a clear voter intimidation directive .
At the very least , we know that Trump can count on Attorney General Bill Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfe to deploy their federal storm troopers to crush opposition to Trump ’ s continued reign .
What can we “ do ” about that ?
I have lots of creative legal ideas , but I do not command a battalion to enforce those ideas .
I own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mousetrap without snapping off my fingers .
I do not perceive that people want an honest answer to the question “ what can we do , ” because the possibility that Trump steals the election , through law or force , is too terrible to contemplate .
A Trump victory , if it comes at all , will surely come over the objection of the popular majority , once again .
His second term will solidify permanent white minority rule in a soon-to-be majority-minority country .
What he wants is functional apartheid : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities , replete with the re-segregation of the suburbs that Trump keeps threatening .
The Senate itself is an undemocratic institution that by its very nature discriminates against nonwhite people , who are not spread evenly throughout the country .
The Supreme Court too is , fundamentally , an antidemocratic institution run by people who are not subject to the popular will of our diverse society , which is one of the reasons the Republicans have invested so much time and energy in controlling it .
If Trump stays in office , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or we won ’ t .
Most ( white ) people will accept it .
Those who do not will have limited options .
There are ways to fight an authoritarian regime ; there are ways to fight a kleptocracy ; there are ways to fight fascism .
None of them is pretty .
None of them involves signing one ’ s name to a petition and then going on Etsy to find a virtue-signaling beer cozy .
None of them is , strictly speaking “ legal , ” and we can literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place to make it illegal to oppose Trump in any way .
We have leaders , like Joe Biden , who want to restore the American government as it was , and we have tons of activists in the streets working tirelessly to reform the American government into something better .
We have the moral high ground .
But we don ’ t have , frankly , the military leadership in place to direct a guerilla campaign against an illegitimate regime .
We don ’ t have a government-in-exile waiting to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international allies .
We don ’ t have an underground network of spies and saboteurs .
We ’ re ready to vote .
We ’ re not ready for what comes next .
We ’ re not ready even if , somehow , Biden wins and is actually allowed to take office .
Trump and McConnell are about to push through another illegitimate justice to promote archconservative views for 40 years , and there are Democrats still talking to me about harming the made-up “ legitimacy of the court ” should the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are out there murdering black people , sometimes on camera , and they have their handpicked prosecutors cover up those crimes , and Democrats are still telling me that “ Defund the police ” is a “ scary name ” that turns off potential “ allies.
” Democrats are wringing their hands over ending the filibuster , a procedural rule that makes an undemocratic institution even less democratic .
And they describe the idea of conferring statehood on D.C. and Puerto Rico ( should the majority of Puerto Ricans want it ) as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to a basic remedial action to give American citizens representation in their own damn government .
Things are bad .
Worse than a lot of people are willing to admit .
The only reason we can even hope that voting may get us out of this mess is that Trump is historically incompetent .
But he ’ s been able to get this far because of systemic bias in our institutions , our media , and our populace .
If we do not tear down the structures that helped Trump rise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician who is just as racist but slightly less bumbling could easily pick up these pieces and finish what Trump started .
Things are bad now , but they can always get worse .
So yes , I know what we can do if voting isn ’ t enough .
I can answer the question , but most people don ’ t like my answer .
What we can do is fight , not with our words , but with our bodies .
We can ’ t defeat the most lethal military power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , but we can lay our bodies down in front of the tanks .
We can refuse to work .
Protests are ongoing in many cities , but , relatively speaking , very few of us have joined .
At some point , they can ’ t beat us all .
If You Wait Until Election Day to Vote , You ’ re Already Too Late Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think If we don ’ t want to fight , we can flee .
Those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options left to those who live to see their countries brought to ruin .
It ’ s not entirely hopeless .
The good guys , some of them , got away at Dunkirk .
They fled .
They survived .
Their defeat left the space for the worst human tragedy in the modern era , the Holocaust , to take place .
There was , and remains , no recovering from that .
But , eventually , the Allies returned , with new weapons and friends and tactics .
They reformed and rebuilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it had been before .
When we lose , there is suffering that can never be made whole .
Estimates tell us that 68,000 soldiers died or were captured defending the retreat .
That ’ s probably only a third of the number of Americans who will die from Covid-19 between now and the inauguration .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Multiple times a day, people will text or direct-message me a news story, and ask me, “What can we do?” It’s usually the last question I’m asked on any radio or television appearance. My mother asks me the question nightly, only she’s my mom, so it sounds like more of a demand than a question.
People who have been paying attention understand that we’re losing. They get that the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is functionally unstoppable. They understand that Donald Trump has an infrastructure in place to suppress the vote in the upcoming election—or get his handpicked justices to hand him the election, or have Electoral College voters steal the election, or even use military force to keep himself in power after losing the election. They know the document leak that shows that Trump has been avoiding paying taxes, or outright defrauding the American government, will cost him no tangible support among his base.
Everybody honest knows that last night’s debate didn’t matter to most voters. Trump’s ignorance and incompetence have contributed to over 206,000 American deaths; if you’re still willing to vote for Trump, there’s nothing he can say in a two-hour “debate” that’s going to change your mind.
What’s harder for people to wrap their minds around is the fact that we’ve already lost. I know I’m supposed to say that “the 2020 election is the most important election of our lifetime,” but it’s not. The 2016 election was the most important election of our lifetime, and we, as a nation, failed. The media failed, and still fails, to cover Trump accurately. The left failed to get enthused by an imperfect candidate. The right failed to demonstrate any moral or intellectual integrity. Over 100 million people failed to show up. I failed to help enough people understand what was coming, because I understood the inherent danger of John Roberts’s disastrous decision to gut the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.
So the 2020 election is not, in fact, our last chance at victory. It’s not an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past. This electoral battle is more like the Battle of Dunkirk. We’re fighting for the chance to retreat. We’re fighting for the chance to fight another day.
Even if we “win,” it will take years to regain what we’ve lost, and some people will never get back what’s been taken. A University of Washington study projects 410,000 coronavirus deaths by the end of this year, double where we are now. And it’s not as if the deaths will stop on January 1, or on January 20 if Joe Biden wins. Some estimates suggest that 1.3 million Americans would have to die to achieve the mythic goal of “herd immunity,” and Republicans seem hell-bent on killing every last one of them. Republican governors and culture warriors will not stop spreading their misinformation just because Biden is president. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
And that’s the “rosy scenario”—the one in which Biden both wins and somehow assumes office. But right now, you’d be a fool to believe that Biden will become president just because he wins the most votes or wins the most votes in enough states to give him an Electoral College victory. We already know that Trump will contest the mail-in ballots that will overwhelmingly vote him out of office. We already know that Trump thinks the Supreme Court is a tool to help him contest these ballots. We’ve heard of devious plans to convince Republican state legislatures to vote in slates of electors who will go against the popular will in their states, if necessary. People seem to have largely forgotten that every shred of foreign interference deployed for Trump’s benefit in the 2016 election is being used against our system again in 2020. And, seeing as Trump has not committed to the peaceful transfer of power, we would be wise to assume that at least some Secret Service offices and military commanders may be willing to fight to keep him in office. During the debate last night, Trump refused to condemn white supremacists, then ordered his supporters to go to the polls and “watch,” a clear voter intimidation directive. At the very least, we know that Trump can count on Attorney General Bill Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfe to deploy their federal storm troopers to crush opposition to Trump’s continued reign. Current Issue View our current issue
What can we “do” about that? I have lots of creative legal ideas, but I do not command a battalion to enforce those ideas. I own no weapons and can barely set a mousetrap without snapping off my fingers. I do not perceive that people want an honest answer to the question “what can we do,” because the possibility that Trump steals the election, through law or force, is too terrible to contemplate.
A Trump victory, if it comes at all, will surely come over the objection of the popular majority, once again. His second term will solidify permanent white minority rule in a soon-to-be majority-minority country. What he wants is functional apartheid: with diminished rights and representation for racial minorities, replete with the re-segregation of the suburbs that Trump keeps threatening. The Senate itself is an undemocratic institution that by its very nature discriminates against nonwhite people, who are not spread evenly throughout the country. The Supreme Court too is, fundamentally, an antidemocratic institution run by people who are not subject to the popular will of our diverse society, which is one of the reasons the Republicans have invested so much time and energy in controlling it.
If Trump stays in office, we will either accept this illegitimate rule, or we won’t. Most (white) people will accept it. Those who do not will have limited options. There are ways to fight an authoritarian regime; there are ways to fight a kleptocracy; there are ways to fight fascism. None of them is pretty. None of them involves signing one’s name to a petition and then going on Etsy to find a virtue-signaling beer cozy. None of them is, strictly speaking “legal,” and we can literally see Bill Barr already putting the structures in place to make it illegal to oppose Trump in any way.
We have leaders, like Joe Biden, who want to restore the American government as it was, and we have tons of activists in the streets working tirelessly to reform the American government into something better. We have the moral high ground. But we don’t have, frankly, the military leadership in place to direct a guerilla campaign against an illegitimate regime. We don’t have a government-in-exile waiting to take power. We don’t have international allies. We don’t have an underground network of spies and saboteurs. We’re ready to vote. We’re not ready for what comes next.
We’re not ready even if, somehow, Biden wins and is actually allowed to take office. Trump and McConnell are about to push through another illegitimate justice to promote archconservative views for 40 years, and there are Democrats still talking to me about harming the made-up “legitimacy of the court” should the Democrats try to add justices. The police are out there murdering black people, sometimes on camera, and they have their handpicked prosecutors cover up those crimes, and Democrats are still telling me that “Defund the police” is a “scary name” that turns off potential “allies.” Democrats are wringing their hands over ending the filibuster, a procedural rule that makes an undemocratic institution even less democratic. And they describe the idea of conferring statehood on D.C. and Puerto Rico (should the majority of Puerto Ricans want it) as a major reform of the Senate as opposed to a basic remedial action to give American citizens representation in their own damn government.
Things are bad. Worse than a lot of people are willing to admit. The only reason we can even hope that voting may get us out of this mess is that Trump is historically incompetent. But he’s been able to get this far because of systemic bias in our institutions, our media, and our populace. If we do not tear down the structures that helped Trump rise and thrive in the first place, a politician who is just as racist but slightly less bumbling could easily pick up these pieces and finish what Trump started. Things are bad now, but they can always get worse.
So yes, I know what we can do if voting isn’t enough. I can answer the question, but most people don’t like my answer. What we can do is fight, not with our words, but with our bodies. We can’t defeat the most lethal military power ever arrayed on Earth by strength of arms, but we can lay our bodies down in front of the tanks. We can refuse to work. Protests are ongoing in many cities, but, relatively speaking, very few of us have joined. At some point, they can’t beat us all. More from Mystal If You Wait Until Election Day to Vote, You’re Already Too Late Elie Mystal Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal
If we don’t want to fight, we can flee. Those are our options. Those are always the options left to those who live to see their countries brought to ruin.
It’s not entirely hopeless. The good guys, some of them, got away at Dunkirk. They fled. They survived. Their defeat left the space for the worst human tragedy in the modern era, the Holocaust, to take place. There was, and remains, no recovering from that. But, eventually, the Allies returned, with new weapons and friends and tactics. They reformed and rebuilt Western Europe into a more egalitarian society than it had been before.
When we lose, there is suffering that can never be made whole. Estimates tell us that 68,000 soldiers died or were captured defending the retreat. That’s probably only a third of the number of Americans who will die from Covid-19 between now and the inauguration.


thenation--2020-09-30--Yes, That Debate Was a Shit Show

Yes, That Debate Was a Shit Show

I don ’ t know about you , but I held my breath for almost two hours Tuesday night .
I knew it was obvious , by any decent standard , that Donald Trump was lying and bullying his way through the first debate—cheating , really—but I ’ m not used to my mainstream colleagues ’ calling him out on it .
Instead , I thought former vice president Joe Biden should have entered the trash talk contest and challenged Trump for who could be more obstreperous .
I was wrong—and this time , happy to be wrong .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even Republicans , shuddered .
CNN ’ s Dana Bash , a great reporter and as mainstream as they come , called it a “ shit show.
” ( After all these years , I didn ’ t know you could say that , even on cable . )
And I realized : I ’ ve been so beaten down by Trump ’ s brazen cheating and abuse of norms—of human decency , really—that I thought Biden would be judged the winner only if he yelled back at him .
Better yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stage and punched Trump in the mouth .
From the moment in the first GOP debate in 2015 when Trump refused to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee , he has broken all the rules—of debating , and everything else .
Politico ’ s Ryan Lizza wrote a piece that reminded us that Trump was better than we recall—even in the debates with Hillary Clinton—and progressive Twitter rose up against him on Tuesday .
But Lizza was right : I was struck by the clip , often played since the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tax returns , from a 2016 debate with Clinton .
When she talked about raising taxes on the rich , like her and Trump , but then noted that he might dodge them , as he had before , Trump interjected , “ That makes me smart , ” with perfect timing .
Four years later , Trump did nothing but interject , but his timing wasn ’ t as good .
It didn ’ t matter ; Fox News star Chris Wallace , the best of that sad bunch , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and Biden .
I hope Wallace woke up Wednesday morning angry at himself for allowing it .
I hope the future moderators watch it and steel themselves , determined not to allow such a desecration of debate norms , or of their own personal dignity .
With Help From Chris Wallace , Trump Attacked American Democracy Nevertheless , I think Biden did what he had to do : display his human decency .
And Trump showed that he had none .
Trump refused to condemn white supremacy .
In fact , unbelievably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proud Boys to “ stand back and stand by , ” adding , “ somebody ’ s got to do something about antifa and the left.
” But when he came after Hunter Biden , as widely predicted he would , the former vice president had one of his best moments : “ My son , my son , my son , ” he cut into Trump ’ s attack .
“ Like a lot of people , like a lot of people we know at home , had a drug problem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fixed it , he ’ s worked on it , and I ’ m proud of him.
” I ’ m sure the millions of parents struggling to help adult children deal with addiction nodded along with Biden .
And again , thank God I ’ m not running for president : I might have pointed to the recent videos and television appearances where Don Jr. looks like he ’ s drugged out of his mind , or whatever he has left of it , and urged Trump to get his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure Biden knows some reliable resources .
Occasionally—and I cherished it—Biden did strike back .
“ Will you shut up , man ?
” he challenged Trump at one point , adding , “ This is so unpresidential.
” He called Trump a “ clown ” — “ Folks , do you have any idea what this clown ’ s doing ?
” more than once , but Trump was talking over him .
At one point , I believe he called Trump a “ racist clown ” —but the volume on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem the same .
Or else Biden needed to be shouting .
Ultimately , however it hurt , it was all good news for Biden .
Conventional wisdom holds that if a front-runner doesn ’ t lose a debate , he or she wins .
Which means that by all accounts , except the most blinkered , Biden won .
And he did .
He ’ s got a sizable lead , nationally and in the swing states .
I wanted him to swing at Trump , but he did what he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human being .
Presidential , even , if we can remember back that far .
Biden ’ s eyes occasionally flashed anger , and sometimes pity , at the overmatched president .
I ’ m not sure the exact right proportion of anger and pity when dealing with Trump , but Biden achieved an admirable mix .
I admit : I have been underestimating Biden ’ s appeal since the start of the 2020 cycle .
I didn ’ t want him to run ; I was impressed by our choice of female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stinging defeat , I hoped we ’ d choose one .
But Biden knows the rules of white , male political Fight Club : Either you beat the crap out of the other guy , or you stand there , with dignity , letting him throw vain punches and wear himself out .
Trump looked worn out last night .
That was Biden ’ s choice .
It was the right one .
And since he ’ s backed up by an army of voting rights lawyers to make sure he prevails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I like to call it—I trust my frenzied , fear-driven comparisons Tuesday night , between the ugly debate and the election , are wrong .
Still , I hope the future moderators watch and learn from Wallace ’ s self-abasement .
And ask for one thing : a way to cut off an unruly debater ’ s mic when necessary .
Even if I could endure that disrespectful debate shit show—and let ’ s be honest , I ’ m paid to—American voters shouldn ’ t have to .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
I don’t know about you, but I held my breath for almost two hours Tuesday night. I knew it was obvious, by any decent standard, that Donald Trump was lying and bullying his way through the first debate—cheating, really—but I’m not used to my mainstream colleagues’ calling him out on it. Instead, I thought former vice president Joe Biden should have entered the trash talk contest and challenged Trump for who could be more obstreperous.
I was wrong—and this time, happy to be wrong. When the debate ended, cable TV commentators, even Republicans, shuddered. CNN’s Dana Bash, a great reporter and as mainstream as they come, called it a “shit show.” (After all these years, I didn’t know you could say that, even on cable.) And I realized: I’ve been so beaten down by Trump’s brazen cheating and abuse of norms—of human decency, really—that I thought Biden would be judged the winner only if he yelled back at him. Better yet, to me: if he crossed the stage and punched Trump in the mouth.
From the moment in the first GOP debate in 2015 when Trump refused to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, he has broken all the rules—of debating, and everything else. Politico’s Ryan Lizza wrote a piece that reminded us that Trump was better than we recall—even in the debates with Hillary Clinton—and progressive Twitter rose up against him on Tuesday. But Lizza was right: I was struck by the clip, often played since the New York Times published its blockbuster story about his tax returns, from a 2016 debate with Clinton. When she talked about raising taxes on the rich, like her and Trump, but then noted that he might dodge them, as he had before, Trump interjected, “That makes me smart,” with perfect timing.
Four years later, Trump did nothing but interject, but his timing wasn’t as good. It didn’t matter; Fox News star Chris Wallace, the best of that sad bunch, let the bully in chief run all over him and Biden. I hope Wallace woke up Wednesday morning angry at himself for allowing it. I hope the future moderators watch it and steel themselves, determined not to allow such a desecration of debate norms, or of their own personal dignity. Related Article With Help From Chris Wallace, Trump Attacked American Democracy Jeet Heer
Nevertheless, I think Biden did what he had to do: display his human decency. And Trump showed that he had none.
Trump refused to condemn white supremacy. In fact, unbelievably, he told white far-right misfits the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” adding, “somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left.” But when he came after Hunter Biden, as widely predicted he would, the former vice president had one of his best moments: “My son, my son, my son,” he cut into Trump’s attack. “Like a lot of people, like a lot of people we know at home, had a drug problem, he’s overtaken it, he’s fixed it, he’s worked on it, and I’m proud of him.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
I’m sure the millions of parents struggling to help adult children deal with addiction nodded along with Biden. And again, thank God I’m not running for president: I might have pointed to the recent videos and television appearances where Don Jr. looks like he’s drugged out of his mind, or whatever he has left of it, and urged Trump to get his oldest boy help. I’m sure Biden knows some reliable resources. Current Issue View our current issue
Occasionally—and I cherished it—Biden did strike back. “Will you shut up, man?” he challenged Trump at one point, adding, “This is so unpresidential.” He called Trump a “clown”—“Folks, do you have any idea what this clown’s doing?” more than once, but Trump was talking over him. At one point, I believe he called Trump a “racist clown”—but the volume on the two guys’ mics didn’t seem the same. Or else Biden needed to be shouting.
Ultimately, however it hurt, it was all good news for Biden. Conventional wisdom holds that if a front-runner doesn’t lose a debate, he or she wins. Which means that by all accounts, except the most blinkered, Biden won. And he did. He’s got a sizable lead, nationally and in the swing states. I wanted him to swing at Trump, but he did what he had to do: look like a decent human being. Presidential, even, if we can remember back that far. Biden’s eyes occasionally flashed anger, and sometimes pity, at the overmatched president. I’m not sure the exact right proportion of anger and pity when dealing with Trump, but Biden achieved an admirable mix.
I admit: I have been underestimating Biden’s appeal since the start of the 2020 cycle. I didn’t want him to run; I was impressed by our choice of female Democratic senators, and after Clinton’s stinging defeat, I hoped we’d choose one. But Biden knows the rules of white, male political Fight Club: Either you beat the crap out of the other guy, or you stand there, with dignity, letting him throw vain punches and wear himself out. Trump looked worn out last night.
That was Biden’s choice. It was the right one. And since he’s backed up by an army of voting rights lawyers to make sure he prevails on election night—or election month, as I like to call it—I trust my frenzied, fear-driven comparisons Tuesday night, between the ugly debate and the election, are wrong.
Still, I hope the future moderators watch and learn from Wallace’s self-abasement. And ask for one thing: a way to cut off an unruly debater’s mic when necessary. Even if I could endure that disrespectful debate shit show—and let’s be honest, I’m paid to—American voters shouldn’t have to.


thenation--2020-09-30--Hillary Clinton Warned Us We Had to Get Serious About the Supreme Court

Four years ago , as she was bidding for the Democratic nomination for the presidency , she delivered the strongest speech of her campaign , on the subject of the United States Supreme Court .
The address she presented was not a reflexive response to the news of the day .
It was not a set of talking points repackaged to fill a passing news cycle .
It was a major policy address—comprehensive in scope and character , ambitious in its goals , yet nuanced in its recognition of the challenges facing her party and her country .
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks and , as someone who was often critical of the former secretary of state , I wrote that “ Clinton ’ s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies , and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations , was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents.
” Yet I also noted that the speech was largely neglected , observing , “ In this absurd campaign season , when media outlets devote hours of time to arguments about which Republican candidate insulted which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aides , about whatever soap-opera scenario comes to mind , thoughtful discussions of issues get little attention .
And deep and detailed discussions of issues get even less coverage.
” Indeed , to the extent that the speech was covered at all , it was in reference to what the Democratic contender had to say about the race for the Republican nomination , especially Clinton ’ s observation , “ What the Republicans have sown with their extremist tactics , they are now reaping with Donald Trump ’ s candidacy.
” That neglect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments on the courts was unsettling at the time , and it remains unsettling , because of what it says about the challenge of making judicial selection a campaign issue .
We face that challenge again , in the midst of another campaign and an even more pitched battle over the court ’ s future .
President Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the high court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has put this country at a critical juncture where a Republican president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconfigure the Supreme Court before the voters deprive them of the power to do so .
Yet , much of the media is already on to the next story : Trump ’ s tax troubles , Trump ’ s outrageous tweeting , Trump ’ s latest outburst .
Trump and McConnell Are Undoing the Supreme Court ’ s Constitutional Legitimacy Bernie Sanders Has Given Us a Tool Kit for Defending Against Trump ’ s Threat to Democracy We did not pause , as Clinton asked us to do in 2016 , to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the courts .
And I fear that we will not pause sufficiently this fall .
It was with this in mind that I revisited Clinton ’ s speech , which remains as salient today as it was when she delivered it on March 28 , 2016 .
Clinton spoke that day as a Yale Law School graduate , the author of scholarly articles on children and the law , a former law school instructor , and a former board chair of the Legal Services Corporation , with a long history of engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She recognized that “ the Court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the United States—from whether you can marry the person you love , to whether you can get healthcare , to whether your classmates can carry guns around this campus.
” And that “ If we ’ re serious about fighting for progressive causes , we need to focus on the Court : who sits on it , how we choose them , and how much we let politics—partisan politics—dominate that process.
” What stood out was the way in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial nominations into historical , political , and legal context .
She delivered a compelling response to the question of how and when to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that had been created with the February 13 , 2016 , death—before either party had nominated its presidential candidates and long before the fall campaign—of Justice Antonin Scalia .
But she also observed , correctly , that “ this battle is bigger than just one empty seat on the Court.
” “ By Election Day , two justices will be more than 80 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age .
The next president could end up nominating multiple justices , ” she explained , after presciently referencing Justices Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy .
“ That means whoever America elects this fall will help determine the future of the Court for decades to come.
” Clinton then—in a move 2020 Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would do well to emulate—worked her way through the Court ’ s 2016 docket : • “ The Court is reviewing how public-sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social workers , and first responders is at stake .
This is something the people of Wisconsin know all too well , because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public-sector unions , and working families have paid the price .
I think that ’ s wrong , and it should stop.
” • “ The Court is reviewing a Texas law imposing unnecessary , expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions .
If that law is allowed to stand , there will only be 10 or so health centers left where women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole state of Texas , a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age .
So it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women.
” • “ The Court is also reviewing whether Texas should have to exclude non-voters when drawing its electoral map .
That would leave out , among others , legal residents , people with felony convictions , and children .
The fair representation of everyone in our society—including 75 million children—hangs in the balance.
” • “ And on top of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action and President Obama ’ s executive actions on immigration , which called for halting the deportation of DREAMers and undocumented parents of citizens and legal residents .
It ’ s also put a hold on the president ’ s clean-power plan .
Either America can limit how much carbon pollution we produce , or we can ’ t .
And if we can ’ t , then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the Paris agreement is greatly diminished.
” Trump Threatens America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and McConnell Are Undoing the Supreme Court ’ s Constitutional Legitimacy More in this series “ In short , ” said Clinton , “ in a single term , the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement .
And as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades , I see this as a make-or-break moment .
If you care about the fairness of elections , the future of unions , racial disparities in universities , the rights of women , or the future of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins the presidency and appoints the next Supreme Court justices.
” Finally , Clinton took on the Court ’ s biggest failure—addressing an issue that her rival for the Democratic nomination , Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders , had made central to his campaign .
Describing “ the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people , ” she decried the 2010 Citizens United ruling that knocked down barriers to corporate influence on elections .
“ If the Court doesn ’ t overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections , ” she said .
“ It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.
” Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think But , to her credit , Clinton did not stop with Citizens United .
“ This Court has voted on the side of corporations—against the interests of workers , unions , consumers and the general public—in case after case , ” said Clinton , who explained that the Court has “ made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue a corporation , even if they are collectively suffering from corporate behavior .
So 2 million Comcast subscribers in Philadelphia were told they each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for fairer prices .
One-and-a-half million women working at Walmart each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for sex discrimination .
That ’ s a burden that the vast majority of people can not afford.
” Clinton closed by putting the arguments that Democrats always make about the Supreme Court into political perspective—and into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal circles .
“ The Court used to—in the 20th century anyway—protect the little guy against the rich and powerful .
More and more , it ’ s doing the opposite—protecting the rich and powerful against the little guy , ” said the former secretary of state .
“ If I ’ m fortunate enough to be president , I will appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests ; who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender , sexual orientation or political viewpoint ; who will protect a woman ’ s right to choose , rather than billionaires ’ right to buy elections ; and who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress , not a barrier to it.
” What Hillary Clinton said in 2016 was right .
It ’ s even more right now .
Democrats should make a deep and determined discussion of the Supreme Court , the Constitution , and the future of the rule of law central to the 2020 campaign—so central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media or by the voters .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Hillary Clinton warned us.
Four years ago, as she was bidding for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, she delivered the strongest speech of her campaign, on the subject of the United States Supreme Court. The address she presented was not a reflexive response to the news of the day. It was not a set of talking points repackaged to fill a passing news cycle. It was a major policy address—comprehensive in scope and character, ambitious in its goals, yet nuanced in its recognition of the challenges facing her party and her country. I was in the room when Clinton delivered her remarks and, as someone who was often critical of the former secretary of state, I wrote that “Clinton’s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies, and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations, was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents.”
Yet I also noted that the speech was largely neglected, observing, “In this absurd campaign season, when media outlets devote hours of time to arguments about which Republican candidate insulted which wife, about violent and irresponsible campaign aides, about whatever soap-opera scenario comes to mind, thoughtful discussions of issues get little attention. And deep and detailed discussions of issues get even less coverage.” Indeed, to the extent that the speech was covered at all, it was in reference to what the Democratic contender had to say about the race for the Republican nomination, especially Clinton’s observation, “What the Republicans have sown with their extremist tactics, they are now reaping with Donald Trump’s candidacy.”
That neglect of the substance of Clinton’s comments on the courts was unsettling at the time, and it remains unsettling, because of what it says about the challenge of making judicial selection a campaign issue. We face that challenge again, in the midst of another campaign and an even more pitched battle over the court’s future. President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the high court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has put this country at a critical juncture where a Republican president and his Senate allies are rushing to reconfigure the Supreme Court before the voters deprive them of the power to do so. Yet, much of the media is already on to the next story: Trump’s tax troubles, Trump’s outrageous tweeting, Trump’s latest outburst. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
We did not pause, as Clinton asked us to do in 2016, to consider the crisis that was emerging with regard to the courts. And I fear that we will not pause sufficiently this fall. It was with this in mind that I revisited Clinton’s speech, which remains as salient today as it was when she delivered it on March 28, 2016.
Clinton spoke that day as a Yale Law School graduate, the author of scholarly articles on children and the law, a former law school instructor, and a former board chair of the Legal Services Corporation, with a long history of engagement with legal issues and the judicial-nomination process. She recognized that “the Court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the United States—from whether you can marry the person you love, to whether you can get healthcare, to whether your classmates can carry guns around this campus.” And that “If we’re serious about fighting for progressive causes, we need to focus on the Court: who sits on it, how we choose them, and how much we let politics—partisan politics—dominate that process.”
What stood out was the way in which Clinton put the 2016 debate over judicial nominations into historical, political, and legal context. She delivered a compelling response to the question of how and when to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that had been created with the February 13, 2016, death—before either party had nominated its presidential candidates and long before the fall campaign—of Justice Antonin Scalia. But she also observed, correctly, that “this battle is bigger than just one empty seat on the Court.” Current Issue View our current issue
“By Election Day, two justices will be more than 80 years old—past the Court’s average retirement age. The next president could end up nominating multiple justices,” she explained, after presciently referencing Justices Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy. “That means whoever America elects this fall will help determine the future of the Court for decades to come.”
Clinton then—in a move 2020 Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would do well to emulate—worked her way through the Court’s 2016 docket:
• “The Court is reviewing how public-sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work. The economic security of millions of teachers, social workers, and first responders is at stake. This is something the people of Wisconsin know all too well, because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public-sector unions, and working families have paid the price. I think that’s wrong, and it should stop.”
• “The Court is reviewing a Texas law imposing unnecessary, expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions. If that law is allowed to stand, there will only be 10 or so health centers left where women can get safe, legal abortions in the whole state of Texas, a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age. So it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women.”
• “The Court is also reviewing whether Texas should have to exclude non-voters when drawing its electoral map. That would leave out, among others, legal residents, people with felony convictions, and children. The fair representation of everyone in our society—including 75 million children—hangs in the balance.”
• “And on top of all that, the Court is reviewing affirmative action and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which called for halting the deportation of DREAMers and undocumented parents of citizens and legal residents. It’s also put a hold on the president’s clean-power plan. Either America can limit how much carbon pollution we produce, or we can’t. And if we can’t, then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the Paris agreement is greatly diminished.” US Supreme Court It’s Time to Abolish Legacy Admissions Harold Klapper Inside the Cynical Campaign to Claim That Affirmative Action Hurts Asian Americans Kali Holloway Let Trump Run Bill Lueders
“In short,” said Clinton, “in a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement. And as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make-or-break moment. If you care about the fairness of elections, the future of unions, racial disparities in universities, the rights of women, or the future of our planet, you should care about who wins the presidency and appoints the next Supreme Court justices.”
Finally, Clinton took on the Court’s biggest failure—addressing an issue that her rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, had made central to his campaign.
Describing “the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people,” she decried the 2010 Citizens United ruling that knocked down barriers to corporate influence on elections.
“If the Court doesn’t overturn Citizens United, I will fight for a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections,” she said. “It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.” The Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal
But, to her credit, Clinton did not stop with Citizens United. “This Court has voted on the side of corporations—against the interests of workers, unions, consumers and the general public—in case after case,” said Clinton, who explained that the Court has “made it harder for consumers to band together to sue a corporation, even if they are collectively suffering from corporate behavior. So 2 million Comcast subscribers in Philadelphia were told they each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for fairer prices. One-and-a-half million women working at Walmart each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for sex discrimination. That’s a burden that the vast majority of people cannot afford.”
Clinton closed by putting the arguments that Democrats always make about the Supreme Court into political perspective—and into language that should have resonated far beyond legal circles.
“The Court used to—in the 20th century anyway—protect the little guy against the rich and powerful. More and more, it’s doing the opposite—protecting the rich and powerful against the little guy,” said the former secretary of state. “If I’m fortunate enough to be president, I will appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; who will protect a woman’s right to choose, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections; and who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress, not a barrier to it.”
What Hillary Clinton said in 2016 was right. It’s even more right now.
Democrats should make a deep and determined discussion of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the future of the rule of law central to the 2020 campaign—so central that it cannot be neglected by the media or by the voters.


thenation--2020-10-01--Trump in the Debate: None Dare Call It Treason

I ’ m not in the habit of quoting John Birchers , but I ’ ll make an exception today .
In 1964 , the far-right author John Stormer published a book , None Dare Call It Treason , detailing how and why he believed a vast Communist conspiracy had infiltrated all levels of the US government .
The book was balderdash , a stew of lies , misinformation , and misinterpretation of facts , but the title was catchy ; and , as I watched the first 2020 presidential “ debate ” Tuesday night , it kept popping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I put scare quotes around the word “ debate ” just the way I put scare quotes around the word “ president ” whenever I think about Trump .
For an actual debate involves an interplay of ideas , an intellectual back-and-forth , a willingness and ability to develop logical lines of argument and calmly rebut , citing facts , the ideas put forth by one ’ s opponent .
By definition it involves more than one participant , as well as a set of ground rules that mold the combatants ’ interaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debating that a child of 8 or 9 is taught by his or her debate coach .
I should know—my son is a high school debater ; before that he was an elementary school debater and a middle school debater .
Yet none of that was present Tuesday night .
Or , rather , Biden showed up wearing his debater ’ s togs , but Trump , predictably , showed up with a bullhorn , a desperately swollen ego , and a slash-and-burn strategy that didn ’ t just shut down the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the integrity of America ’ s political process .
Faced with Trump ’ s storm of vitriol and repeated interruptions , moderator Chris Wallace was spectacularly unable to bring order to the stage .
It was a colossal journalistic failure on his part , allowing Trump ’ s display of demagoguery and puffery , a sort of verbal version of mixed martial arts or World Wrestling Entertainment , to dominate the stage with his Noise in a way never before seen from a US president .
Trump Threatens America : Re-Elect Me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s Message Trump lied almost every time he opened his mouth .
He lied about his Covid response ; he lied about his health care plans ( to the extent that he has any ) ; he lied about Biden ’ s health care plan ; he lied about his environmental record ; he lied about Biden ’ s environmental record ; he lied about his economic record ; and he lied about Obama ’ s economic record ; It wasn ’ t just that every so often he mixed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , can happen to even the best-prepped debater .
It was that he had decided facts were inconvenient and that he would therefore discard them for a fictive counter-narrative that better suited his needs .
But he went far beyond just lying .
Time and again he tried to sow doubt about the election process , about the basic democratic principle of settling political battles at the ballot box ; and in the chilling final minutes , he made it clear that he was willing to send vigilantes to polling stations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote count , all to secure his power .
In a country as on edge and polarized as today ’ s America , which has more guns than people , this was the height of irresponsibility .
For that reason alone , this “ debate ” would have qualified as the most debased example of its kind in American history .
But that wasn ’ t where things stopped .
Where Trump really ended was in a sort of fascist halfway house , a strongman not quite confident enough in his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely , but secure enough in his bile to give a wink and nod to white nationalists and neo-Nazi street-fighters , and to salute one group by name , the Proud Boys , telling them to “ stand back and stand by.
” That will surely go down as one of the most infamous lines in American politics—the moment when Trump put the world on notice that he was ready to activate his version of the Nazi SA paramilitary forces .
You reap what you sow .
In acquitting earlier this year at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew was guilty of a slew of crimes and outrages against the Constitution , Mitch McConnell ’ s Republicans gave their imprimatur to Trump ’ s dictatorial impulses .
He is now running on those impulses , and he ’ s collapsing the country ’ s democratic pillars as he rampages .
When the history books are written about this shameful period , those who enabled Trump ’ s onslaught against democracy will be condemned as collaborators .
Trump may not be guilty of treason according to the technical definition of the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is unleashing , in his increasingly desperate bid to retain power , and what the GOP congressional leadership is acquiescing in as they continue their Faustian bargain with him ( “ you give us conservative judicial nominations , and we ’ ll turn a blind eye to all your sins ” ) , is something very , very dark .
Something that could do unfathomable damage to US institutions and Americans ’ lives .
Something that could make peaceful politics , a politics bound by rules and norms and limits , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For when the “ president ” of the United States uses his time in front of an audience of tens of millions to flirt with street gangs , to destroy public confidence in elections , and to refuse to agree to guarantees regarding the peaceful transfer of power , he is pushing a narrative of civil conflict .
And that is something every person of good conscience , regardless of their ideological affiliations , should recoil from in horror .
Trump repeatedly said Tuesday night that he represented “ law and order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN ’ s Dana Bash labeled the “ shit show ” to the conclusion , his own words on the stage belied it .
He is now quite openly flirting with violence as a means to prevent a full and fair vote count , and of unleashing fascist thugs to deal with his political enemies .
That ’ s gangsterism—and that ’ s the Signal : The “ president ” of the United States is essentially seceding from the American constitutional system of governance .
And yet from the GOP ranks in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hired claque , or , just as telling , the silence of a cowed and cowardly gaggle .

I’m not in the habit of quoting John Birchers, but I’ll make an exception today. In 1964, the far-right author John Stormer published a book, None Dare Call It Treason, detailing how and why he believed a vast Communist conspiracy had infiltrated all levels of the US government.
The book was balderdash, a stew of lies, misinformation, and misinterpretation of facts, but the title was catchy; and, as I watched the first 2020 presidential “debate” Tuesday night, it kept popping up in my mind’s eye.
I put scare quotes around the word “debate” just the way I put scare quotes around the word “president” whenever I think about Trump. For an actual debate involves an interplay of ideas, an intellectual back-and-forth, a willingness and ability to develop logical lines of argument and calmly rebut, citing facts, the ideas put forth by one’s opponent. By definition it involves more than one participant, as well as a set of ground rules that mold the combatants’ interaction. These are the basic norms of debating that a child of 8 or 9 is taught by his or her debate coach. I should know—my son is a high school debater; before that he was an elementary school debater and a middle school debater.
Yet none of that was present Tuesday night. Or, rather, Biden showed up wearing his debater’s togs, but Trump, predictably, showed up with a bullhorn, a desperately swollen ego, and a slash-and-burn strategy that didn’t just shut down the ability to debate but also did huge damage to the integrity of America’s political process. Faced with Trump’s storm of vitriol and repeated interruptions, moderator Chris Wallace was spectacularly unable to bring order to the stage. It was a colossal journalistic failure on his part, allowing Trump’s display of demagoguery and puffery, a sort of verbal version of mixed martial arts or World Wrestling Entertainment, to dominate the stage with his Noise in a way never before seen from a US president. More Signal:Noise Trump Threatens America: Reelect Me, or Else Sasha Abramsky Fascism Is the Core of Trump’s Message Sasha Abramsky
Trump lied almost every time he opened his mouth. He lied about his Covid response; he lied about his health care plans (to the extent that he has any); he lied about Biden’s health care plan; he lied about his environmental record; he lied about Biden’s environmental record; he lied about his economic record; and he lied about Obama’s economic record; It wasn’t just that every so often he mixed up his facts; that, after all, can happen to even the best-prepped debater. It was that he had decided facts were inconvenient and that he would therefore discard them for a fictive counter-narrative that better suited his needs.
But he went far beyond just lying. Time and again he tried to sow doubt about the election process, about the basic democratic principle of settling political battles at the ballot box; and in the chilling final minutes, he made it clear that he was willing to send vigilantes to polling stations and attorneys to gum up every aspect of the vote count, all to secure his power. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In a country as on edge and polarized as today’s America, which has more guns than people, this was the height of irresponsibility. For that reason alone, this “debate” would have qualified as the most debased example of its kind in American history. But that wasn’t where things stopped. Where Trump really ended was in a sort of fascist halfway house, a strongman not quite confident enough in his ability to do away with the election process entirely, but secure enough in his bile to give a wink and nod to white nationalists and neo-Nazi street-fighters, and to salute one group by name, the Proud Boys, telling them to “stand back and stand by.” Current Issue View our current issue
That will surely go down as one of the most infamous lines in American politics—the moment when Trump put the world on notice that he was ready to activate his version of the Nazi SA paramilitary forces.
You reap what you sow. In acquitting earlier this year at his Senate trial a man who they knew was guilty of a slew of crimes and outrages against the Constitution, Mitch McConnell’s Republicans gave their imprimatur to Trump’s dictatorial impulses. He is now running on those impulses, and he’s collapsing the country’s democratic pillars as he rampages. When the history books are written about this shameful period, those who enabled Trump’s onslaught against democracy will be condemned as collaborators.
Trump may not be guilty of treason according to the technical definition of the word. But I do know that what Trump is unleashing, in his increasingly desperate bid to retain power, and what the GOP congressional leadership is acquiescing in as they continue their Faustian bargain with him (“you give us conservative judicial nominations, and we’ll turn a blind eye to all your sins”), is something very, very dark. Something that could do unfathomable damage to US institutions and Americans’ lives. Something that could make peaceful politics, a politics bound by rules and norms and limits, a quaint legacy of a calmer past. For when the “president” of the United States uses his time in front of an audience of tens of millions to flirt with street gangs, to destroy public confidence in elections, and to refuse to agree to guarantees regarding the peaceful transfer of power, he is pushing a narrative of civil conflict. And that is something every person of good conscience, regardless of their ideological affiliations, should recoil from in horror.
Trump repeatedly said Tuesday night that he represented “law and order,” but from the start of what CNN’s Dana Bash labeled the “shit show” to the conclusion, his own words on the stage belied it. He is now quite openly flirting with violence as a means to prevent a full and fair vote count, and of unleashing fascist thugs to deal with his political enemies. That’s gangsterism—and that’s the Signal: The “president” of the United States is essentially seceding from the American constitutional system of governance. And yet from the GOP ranks in Congress, we still hear the clapping of the hired claque, or, just as telling, the silence of a cowed and cowardly gaggle.


thenation--2020-10-01--Trump Embodies America’s Dreams of Destruction

What pops into your head when you hear the number 1,000 in a political-military context ?
Having studied German military history , I immediately think of Adolf Hitler ’ s confident boast that his Third Reich would last a thousand years .
In reality , of course , a devastating world war brought that Reich down in a mere 12 years .
Only recently , however , such boasts popped up again in the dark dreams of Donald Trump .
If Iran dared to attack the United States , Trump tweeted and then repeated on Fox & Friends , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 times greater force.
” Think about that for a moment .
If such typical Trumpian red-meat rhetoric were to become reality , you would be talking about a monumental war crime in its disproportionality .
If , say , the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot a missile at an American base in the region and killed 10 US military personnel , Trump is saying that , in response , he ’ d then seek to kill 10,000 Iranians—an act that would recall Nazi reprisals in World War II when entire villages like Lidice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been killed .
Back then , Americans knew that such murderous behavior was evil .
So why do so many of us no longer flinch at such madness ?
If references to “ evil ” seem inappropriate to you , keep in mind that I was raised Catholic and one idea the priests and nuns firmly implanted in me then was the presence of evil in our world—and in me as a microcosm of that world .
It ’ s a moral imperative—so they taught me—to fight evil by denying it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in our lives , even turning the other cheek to avoid giving offense to our brothers and sisters .
Christ , after all , didn ’ t teach us to whip someone 1,000 times if they struck you once .
Speaking of large numbers , I still recall Christ ’ s teaching on forgiveness .
How many times , he asked , should we forgive those who offend us ?
Seven times , perhaps ?
No , 70 times seven .
He didn ’ t , of course , mean 490 acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Christ was saying that forgiveness must be large and generous , as boundless as we imperfect humans can make it .
Trump loves hyperbolic numbers , but his are plainly in the service of boundless revenge , not forgiveness .
His catechism is one of intimidation and , if that fails , retribution .
It doesn ’ t matter if it takes the form of mass destruction and death ( including , in the case of Americans , death by coronavirus ) .
By announcing such goals so openly , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his accomplices .
Passively or actively , if we do nothing , we accept the possibility of mass murder in the service of Trump ’ s dark dreams of smiting those who would dare strike at his version of America .
It ’ s easy to dismiss his threats as nothing more than red meat to his base , but they are also distinctly anti-Christian .
The saddest thing , however , is that they are , unfortunately , not at all un-American , as any quick survey of this country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would show .
So , while I do reject all Trump ’ s murderous words and empty promises , I find them strangely unexceptional and unnervingly all-American .
Indeed , my own guess is that he ’ s won such a boisterous following in this country precisely because he does so visibly , so thunderously , so bigly embody its darkest dreams of destruction , which have all too often become reality when visited upon recalcitrant peoples who refused to bend to our will .
Americans today are sold an image of war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and detachment from this country ’ s “ forever wars.
” But as history reminds us , real war isn ’ t like that .
It never was , not when colonists were killing Native Americans in vast numbers ; nor when we were busy killing our fellow Americans in our Civil War ; nor when US troops were ruthlessly putting down the Filipino insurrection in the early 20th century ; nor when our air force firebombed Dresden , Tokyo , and so many other cities in World War II and later nuked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea was flattened by bombing in the early 1950s ; nor when Vietnam , Cambodia , and Laos were bludgeoned by bombs , napalm , and Agent Orange in the 1960s and early 1970s ; nor when Iraqis were killed by the tens of thousands during the first Gulf War of 1990–91 .
And that , of course , is only a partial and selective accounting of the wanton carnage overseen by past presidents .
In reality , Americans have never been shy about killing on a mass scale in the alleged cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , Trump ’ s rhetoric of mass destruction is truly nothing new under the sun ( except perhaps in its pure blustering bravado ) ; Trump , that is , just salivates more openly at the prospect of inflicting pain on a mass scale on peoples he doesn ’ t like .
And even that isn ’ t as new as you might imagine .
In this century , Republicans have been especially keen to share their dreams of massively bombing others .
On the campaign trail in 2007 , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Barbara Ann , ” Senator ( and former bomber pilot and Vietnam POW ) John McCain smirkingly sang of bombing Iran .
( “ Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran !
” ) Similarly , during the Republican presidential debates of 2016 , Senator Ted Cruz boasted of wanting to “ utterly destroy ” the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq by carpet-bombing its territory and , in doing so , making the desert sand “ glow in the dark.
” The implication was , of course , that as president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Middle East .
( Talk about all options being on the table ! )
Consider two examples from the nuclear era , then and now .
In the depth of the Cold War years , in response to a possible Soviet nuclear attack , this country ’ s war plans envisioned a simultaneous assault on the Soviet Union and China that military planners estimated would , in the end , kill 600 million people .
That would have been the equivalent of 100 Holocausts , notes Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether China had joined or even known about the Soviet attack didn ’ t matter .
As communists , they were guilty by association and so to be obliterated anyway .
Ellsberg notes that only one man present at the briefing where this “ plan ” was presented objected to such a mindless act of mass murder , David Shoup , a Marine general and Medal of Honor winner who would later similarly object to the Vietnam War .
Fast forward to today and our even more potentially planet-ending nuclear forces are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 1.7 trillion over the coming decades .
Any Ohio-class SSBN nuclear submarine in the Navy ’ s inventory , for example , could potentially kill millions of people with its 24 Trident II ballistic missiles ( each carrying as many as eight nuclear warheads , each warhead with roughly six times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb ) .
While such vessels are officially meant to “ deter ” nuclear war , they are , of course , ultimately built to fight one .
Each is a submerged holocaust waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , do we think about what those subs truly represent , historically speaking .
Meanwhile , the Pentagon continues to “ invest ” ( as the military likes to say ) in ever-newer generations of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based missiles , promising a holocaust of planetary proportions if ever used .
To grasp what an actual nuclear war would mean , you would have to update an old saying : One death is a tragedy ; several billion is a statistic .
Aggravating such essential collective madness in this moment ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fascination with such weaponry ) is Trump ’ s recent cynical call for what might be thought of as the nuking of our history : the installation of a truly “ patriotic ” education in our schools—in other words , a history that would obliterate everything but his version of American greatness .
That would , of course , include not just the legacy of slavery and other dark chapters in our past , but our continued willingness to build weaponry that has the instant capacity to end it all in a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I can tell you that such a version of our past would be totally antithetical to sound learning in this or any world .
History must , by definition , be critical of the world we ’ ve created .
It must be tough-minded and grapple with our actions ( and inactions ) , crimes and all , if we are ever to grow morally stronger as a country or a people .
History that only focuses on the supposedly good bits , however defined , is like your annoying friend ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after photo of smiling faces , gourmet meals , exclusive parties , puppies , ice cream , and rainbows , that features a flurry of status updates reducible to “ I ’ m having the time of my life.
” We know perfectly well , of course , that no one ’ s life is really like that—and neither is any country ’ s history .
History should , of course , be about understanding ourselves as we really are , our strengths and weaknesses , triumphs , tragedies , and transgressions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest accounting of how this country got one Donald J. Trump , a failed casino owner and celebrity pitchman , as president at a moment when most of its leaders were still claiming that it was the most exceptional country in the history of the universe .
I ’ ll give you a hint : We got him because he represented a side of America that was indeed exceptional , just not in any way that was ever morally just or democratically sound .
Jingoistic history says , “ My country , right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wants to push this a goosestep further to “ My country and my leader , always right.
” That ’ s fascism , not “ patriotic ” history , and we need to recognize that and reject it .
The United States has been the imperial power of record on this planet since World War II .
Lately , the economic and moral aspects of that power have waned , even as our military power remains supreme ( though without being able to win anything whatsoever ) .
That should tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a “ SmackDown ” country , to borrow a term from professional wrestling , in a world that ’ s increasingly being smacked down anyway .
Harold Pinter , the British playwright , caught this country ’ s imperial spirit well in his Nobel Prize lecture in 2005 .
America , he said then , has committed crimes that Anyone with a knowledge of our history knows that there was truth indeed in what Pinter said 15 years ago .
He noticed how this country ’ s leaders wielded language “ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orwell before him , Pinter was at pains to use plain language about war , noting how the Americans and British had “ brought torture , cluster bombs , depleted uranium , innumerable acts of random murder , misery , degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call [ ed ] it bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.
” The point here was not simply to bash America .
It was to get us to think about our actions in genuine historical terms .
A decade and a half ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even if you disagreed with him , or maybe especially if you did so , you need the intellectual tools and command of the facts to grapple with that critique .
It should never be enough simply to shout “ USA !
USA !
” in an ever-louder fashion and hope it will drown out not only critics and dissenters but reality itself—and perhaps even your own secret doubts .
And we should have such doubts .
We should be ready to dissent .
We should recognize , as America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that dissenters are often the truest patriots of all , even if they are also often the loneliest ones .
We should especially have doubts about a leader who threatens to bring violence against another country 1,000 times greater than anything that country could visit upon us .
I don ’ t need the Catholic Church , or even Christ in the New Testament , to tell me that such thinking is wrong in a Washington that now seems to be offering a carnivorous taste of what a future American autocracy could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall the wise words of my Polish mother-in-law : “ Have a heart , if you ’ ve got a heart.
” Have a heart , America .
Reject American carnage in all its forms .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
What pops into your head when you hear the number 1,000 in a political-military context? Having studied German military history, I immediately think of Adolf Hitler’s confident boast that his Third Reich would last a thousand years. In reality, of course, a devastating world war brought that Reich down in a mere 12 years. Only recently, however, such boasts popped up again in the dark dreams of Donald Trump. If Iran dared to attack the United States, Trump tweeted and then repeated on Fox & Friends, the United States would strike back with “1,000 times greater force.”
Think about that for a moment. If such typical Trumpian red-meat rhetoric were to become reality, you would be talking about a monumental war crime in its disproportionality. If, say, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot a missile at an American base in the region and killed 10 US military personnel, Trump is saying that, in response, he’d then seek to kill 10,000 Iranians—an act that would recall Nazi reprisals in World War II when entire villages like Lidice were destroyed because one prominent Nazi official had been killed. Back then, Americans knew that such murderous behavior was evil. So why do so many of us no longer flinch at such madness?
If references to “evil” seem inappropriate to you, keep in mind that I was raised Catholic and one idea the priests and nuns firmly implanted in me then was the presence of evil in our world—and in me as a microcosm of that world. It’s a moral imperative—so they taught me—to fight evil by denying it, as much as humanly possible, a place in our lives, even turning the other cheek to avoid giving offense to our brothers and sisters. Christ, after all, didn’t teach us to whip someone 1,000 times if they struck you once.
Speaking of large numbers, I still recall Christ’s teaching on forgiveness. How many times, he asked, should we forgive those who offend us? Seven times, perhaps? No, 70 times seven. He didn’t, of course, mean 490 acts of forgiveness. Through that hyperbolic number, Christ was saying that forgiveness must be large and generous, as boundless as we imperfect humans can make it.
Trump loves hyperbolic numbers, but his are plainly in the service of boundless revenge, not forgiveness. His catechism is one of intimidation and, if that fails, retribution. It doesn’t matter if it takes the form of mass destruction and death (including, in the case of Americans, death by coronavirus). By announcing such goals so openly, of course, he turns the rest of us into his accomplices. Passively or actively, if we do nothing, we accept the possibility of mass murder in the service of Trump’s dark dreams of smiting those who would dare strike at his version of America. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
It’s easy to dismiss his threats as nothing more than red meat to his base, but they are also distinctly anti-Christian. The saddest thing, however, is that they are, unfortunately, not at all un-American, as any quick survey of this country’s record of wanton destructiveness in war would show.
So, while I do reject all Trump’s murderous words and empty promises, I find them strangely unexceptional and unnervingly all-American. Indeed, my own guess is that he’s won such a boisterous following in this country precisely because he does so visibly, so thunderously, so bigly embody its darkest dreams of destruction, which have all too often become reality when visited upon recalcitrant peoples who refused to bend to our will. Current Issue View our current issue
Destruction as Salvation
Americans today are sold an image of war as almost antiseptic—hardly surprising given our distance and detachment from this country’s “forever wars.” But as history reminds us, real war isn’t like that. It never was, not when colonists were killing Native Americans in vast numbers; nor when we were busy killing our fellow Americans in our Civil War; nor when US troops were ruthlessly putting down the Filipino insurrection in the early 20th century; nor when our air force firebombed Dresden, Tokyo, and so many other cities in World War II and later nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki; nor when North Korea was flattened by bombing in the early 1950s; nor when Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were bludgeoned by bombs, napalm, and Agent Orange in the 1960s and early 1970s; nor when Iraqis were killed by the tens of thousands during the first Gulf War of 1990–91.
And that, of course, is only a partial and selective accounting of the wanton carnage overseen by past presidents. In reality, Americans have never been shy about killing on a mass scale in the alleged cause of righteousness and democracy.
In that sense, Trump’s rhetoric of mass destruction is truly nothing new under the sun (except perhaps in its pure blustering bravado); Trump, that is, just salivates more openly at the prospect of inflicting pain on a mass scale on peoples he doesn’t like. And even that isn’t as new as you might imagine.
In this century, Republicans have been especially keen to share their dreams of massively bombing others. On the campaign trail in 2007, to the tune of the Beach Boys’ cover “Barbara Ann,” Senator (and former bomber pilot and Vietnam POW) John McCain smirkingly sang of bombing Iran. (“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!”) Similarly, during the Republican presidential debates of 2016, Senator Ted Cruz boasted of wanting to “utterly destroy” the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq by carpet-bombing its territory and, in doing so, making the desert sand “glow in the dark.” The implication was, of course, that as president he’d happily use nuclear weapons in the Middle East. (Talk about all options being on the table!)
Alarming? Yes! Very American? USA #1!
Consider two examples from the nuclear era, then and now. In the depth of the Cold War years, in response to a possible Soviet nuclear attack, this country’s war plans envisioned a simultaneous assault on the Soviet Union and China that military planners estimated would, in the end, kill 600 million people. That would have been the equivalent of 100 Holocausts, notes Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who was privy to those plans.
Whether China had joined or even known about the Soviet attack didn’t matter. As communists, they were guilty by association and so to be obliterated anyway. Ellsberg notes that only one man present at the briefing where this “plan” was presented objected to such a mindless act of mass murder, David Shoup, a Marine general and Medal of Honor winner who would later similarly object to the Vietnam War.
Fast forward to today and our even more potentially planet-ending nuclear forces are still being “modernized” to the tune of $1.7 trillion over the coming decades. Any Ohio-class SSBN nuclear submarine in the Navy’s inventory, for example, could potentially kill millions of people with its 24 Trident II ballistic missiles (each carrying as many as eight nuclear warheads, each warhead with roughly six times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb). While such vessels are officially meant to “deter” nuclear war, they are, of course, ultimately built to fight one. Each is a submerged holocaust waiting to be unleashed.
Rarely, if ever, do we think about what those subs truly represent, historically speaking. Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to “invest” (as the military likes to say) in ever-newer generations of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based missiles, promising a holocaust of planetary proportions if ever used. To grasp what an actual nuclear war would mean, you would have to update an old saying: One death is a tragedy; several billion is a statistic.
Aggravating such essential collective madness in this moment (and the president’s fiery and furious fascination with such weaponry) is Trump’s recent cynical call for what might be thought of as the nuking of our history: the installation of a truly “patriotic” education in our schools—in other words, a history that would obliterate everything but his version of American greatness. That would, of course, include not just the legacy of slavery and other dark chapters in our past, but our continued willingness to build weaponry that has the instant capacity to end it all in a matter of hours.
As a history professor, I can tell you that such a version of our past would be totally antithetical to sound learning in this or any world. History must, by definition, be critical of the world we’ve created. It must be tough-minded and grapple with our actions (and inactions), crimes and all, if we are ever to grow morally stronger as a country or a people.
History that only focuses on the supposedly good bits, however defined, is like your annoying friend’s Facebook page—the one that shows photo after photo of smiling faces, gourmet meals, exclusive parties, puppies, ice cream, and rainbows, that features a flurry of status updates reducible to “I’m having the time of my life.” We know perfectly well, of course, that no one’s life is really like that—and neither is any country’s history.
History should, of course, be about understanding ourselves as we really are, our strengths and weaknesses, triumphs, tragedies, and transgressions. It would even have to include an honest accounting of how this country got one Donald J. Trump, a failed casino owner and celebrity pitchman, as president at a moment when most of its leaders were still claiming that it was the most exceptional country in the history of the universe. I’ll give you a hint: We got him because he represented a side of America that was indeed exceptional, just not in any way that was ever morally just or democratically sound.
Jingoistic history says, “My country, right or wrong, but my country.” Trump wants to push this a goosestep further to “My country and my leader, always right.” That’s fascism, not “patriotic” history, and we need to recognize that and reject it.
Learning without Flinching from History
The United States has been the imperial power of record on this planet since World War II. Lately, the economic and moral aspects of that power have waned, even as our military power remains supreme (though without being able to win anything whatsoever). That should tell you something about America. We’re still a “SmackDown” country, to borrow a term from professional wrestling, in a world that’s increasingly being smacked down anyway.
Harold Pinter, the British playwright, caught this country’s imperial spirit well in his Nobel Prize lecture in 2005. America, he said then, has committed crimes that
have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
Anyone with a knowledge of our history knows that there was truth indeed in what Pinter said 15 years ago. He noticed how this country’s leaders wielded language “to keep thought at bay.” Like George Orwell before him, Pinter was at pains to use plain language about war, noting how the Americans and British had “brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call[ed] it bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.”
The point here was not simply to bash America. It was to get us to think about our actions in genuine historical terms. A decade and a half ago, Pinter threw down a challenge, and even if you disagreed with him, or maybe especially if you did so, you need the intellectual tools and command of the facts to grapple with that critique. It should never be enough simply to shout “USA! USA!” in an ever-louder fashion and hope it will drown out not only critics and dissenters but reality itself—and perhaps even your own secret doubts.
And we should have such doubts. We should be ready to dissent. We should recognize, as America’s current attorney general most distinctly does not, that dissenters are often the truest patriots of all, even if they are also often the loneliest ones. We should especially have doubts about a leader who threatens to bring violence against another country 1,000 times greater than anything that country could visit upon us.
I don’t need the Catholic Church, or even Christ in the New Testament, to tell me that such thinking is wrong in a Washington that now seems to be offering a carnivorous taste of what a future American autocracy could be like. I just need to recall the wise words of my Polish mother-in-law: “Have a heart, if you’ve got a heart.”
Have a heart, America. Reject American carnage in all its forms.