thenation--2020-11-30--Will a Biden Administration Mean a Smaller Military Budget?

Now that Joe Biden is slated to take office as the 46th president of the United States , advice on how he should address a wide range of daunting problems is flooding in .
Nowhere is there more at stake than when it comes to how he handles this country ’ s highly militarized foreign policy in general and Pentagon spending in particular .
Defense spending increased sharply in the Trump years and is now substantially higher than it was during the Korean or Vietnam War eras or during the massive military buildup President Ronald Reagan oversaw in the 1980s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the nation ’ s discretionary budget , which just happens to also pay for a wide array of urgently needed priorities ranging from housing , job training , and alternative energy programs to public health and infrastructure building .
At a time when pandemics , high unemployment , racial inequality , and climate change pose the greatest threats to our safety and security , this allocation of resources should be considered unsustainable .
Unfortunately , the Pentagon and the arms industry have yet to get that memo .
Defense company executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are “ unconcerned ” about or consider unlikely the possibility that a Biden administration would significantly reduce Pentagon spending .
It ’ s easy enough to understand their confidence .
Many of the officials rumored to soon be appointed to lead the Pentagon , including a number of former Obama administration figures , have spent the past few years working , either directly or indirectly , for defense contractors .
Not surprisingly , then , their policy prescriptions emphasize some of the most expensive and risky military technologies imaginable like hypersonic weaponry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michèle Flournoy , has already insisted that Washington needs to make “ big bets ” on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence .
Of course , she won ’ t be the one who will pay the price if they fail—or even if they succeed and take money that might have been used for crucial domestic purposes like health care in a pandemic moment .
Still , contrary to the wishes and hopes of the military-industrial complex and figures like Flournoy , there is a growing congressional interest in trying to bring runaway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , Representative Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) , Representative Barbara Lee ( D-Calif. ) , and Senator Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) pushed parallel measures in the House and Senate to cut Pentagon spending by 10 percent , a savings of more than $ 70 billion that could have been put to good use elsewhere , including aid to increasingly desperate low-income communities .
Although their initiatives lost , the very fact that they were proposed may be a turning point in a Congress that , for years , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for , without resistance of any sort .
Think of those votes on Pentagon budget reductions as just the beginning of a long-term effort to tame that out-of-control institution .
Representatives Pocan and Lee , for instance , created a defense-savings caucus in the House focused on going after misguided Department of Defense spending .
During campaign 2020 , both Joe Biden and the Democratic platform emphasized that this country and the world can indeed be made safer while spending less on the Pentagon .
Clearly , the fairy-tale explanation that more spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will it happen soon ?
Who knows ?
At least it ’ s time for the rest of us to begin thinking about how much less should be spent on the Department of Defense and how to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent more wisely .
In reality , it ’ s not that complicated .
Pentagon spending could easily be reduced substantially even as the world was made a safer place .
For that to happen , however , its budget would have to begin to deal with the actual challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars or more be squandered on outmoded military priorities and artificially inflated threats supposedly posed by our biggest adversaries .
One blueprint for doing just that has been put together by the Center for International Policy ’ s Sustainable Defense Task Force , a group of former White House , Pentagon , and congressional budget officials , retired military officers , and think-tank experts from across the political spectrum .
They have crafted a plan to save $ 1.25 trillion from proposed Pentagon spending over the next decade .
As that task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such spending to become feasible , this country ’ s leadership would have to take a more realistic view of the military challenges posed by both China and Russia .
In recent years , the regime in Beijing has indeed been increasing its military spending , but when it comes to an armed presence in the Pacific region and the ability to make war there , the United States remains staggeringly stronger .
As a start , it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons five to six times as large as China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using it would mean a planetary Armageddon ) .
And while Beijing ’ s influence is primarily focused on its own region , the US military has a historically unprecedented global reach , deploying nearly 200,000 troops overseas garrisoned on at least 800 military bases scattered across continents , and maintaining 11 aircraft carrier task forces to patrol the global seas .
In reality , the sort of “ arms race ” with China now being considered will be costly and unnecessary , while only increasing the risk of war between those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoided at all costs .
China ’ s real 21st century challenge to this country isn ’ t military at all , but political and economic in nature .
Its leadership has focused on increasing that country ’ s power and influence through investment programs like its ever more global Belt and Road infrastructure initiative .
Despite many problems , such efforts are clearly giving Beijing the sort of growing global clout , especially in the America First era of Donald Trump , that a hopeless attempt to match US military power never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor : If there ’ s to be any hope of preventing future pandemics from ravaging the planet , curbing the growing impact of climate change , or reviving a global economy that ’ s distinctly in the dumps , increased cooperation and transparency between the two greatest powers on the planet , not confrontation , will be a necessity .
As for Russia , a relatively shaky petro-state , its primary tools of influence in recent years have been propaganda , cyber-threats , and “ hybrid warfare ” on its peripheries ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destabilize Ukraine ) .
Despite its still vast nuclear arsenal , Russia does not represent a traditional military challenge to the United States and so shouldn ’ t be used to justify another pointless Pentagon spending boost .
To the extent that there is a military challenge from Russia , it can be more than adequately addressed by various European nations with the United States in a limited , supporting role .
After all , European members of NATO cumulatively spend more than three times what Russia does on their militaries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind that this just isn ’ t the Cold War era of the previous century .
In reality , Russia ’ s economy is now smaller than Italy ’ s and Moscow is in no position to engage in an arms race even with the nations of Western Europe , no less Washington .
Despite its disastrous forever wars in distant lands , if the institution still often referred to as the “ Department of Defense ” were to refocus on actual national defense rather than global military domination , it could , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of ill-conceived and staggeringly expensive new weapons systems .
Those would range from plans to “ modernize ” the country ’ s already vast nuclear arsenal by buying a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers , missiles , and submarines at a cost of up to $ 2 trillion to the fantasy of building up from current levels to a 500-ship Navy .
High on any list of programs to be instantly eliminated would be a proposed new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ( ICBM ) .
As former secretary of defense William Perry has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most dangerous weapons in the world ” for a simple reason : A president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch such missiles upon being warned of another power using similar weaponry to attack the United States .
Since , in the past , such warnings have proven anything but accurate , new weaponry of this sort will only increase the chances of an accidental nuclear war being started .
The Pentagon has , however , already given the giant arms maker Northrop Grumman a sole-source contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a new weapon , a down payment on a program that could ultimately cost $ 264 billion to build and operate .
Funds like those could go far to meet other genuinely pressing national needs .
As for the nuclear arsenal ’ s upgrade as a whole , the organization Global Zero has outlined an alternative nuclear posture that would halt the Pentagon ’ s costly nuclear “ modernization ” plan , eliminate ICBMs altogether , and reduce the numbers of nuclear-armed bombers and submarines .
The idea would be to switch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only ” strategy and dump the elaborate and dangerous nuclear war scenarios the Pentagon now swears by .
The ultimate goal would , of course , be the global elimination of such weaponry , as called for in the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons , which is slated to enter into force early next year .
Then there ’ s that dream ( or nightmare ) of a future Navy to deal with .
Building up to a fleet of 500 ships is not just unaffordable , but a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an urge to run stark raving mad with taxpayer dollars .
Even a previous plan to build 330 ships was so mismanaged that it left the Navy 50 ships short , $ 11 billion over budget , and years behind schedule .
Rather than seeking to preserve the capability to have warships virtually everywhere on Earth all the time , the Navy set up to surge into areas of tension could be roughly half the size of the 500-ship one and still be powerful beyond words .
More savings could easily be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons systems like Lockheed Martin ’ s disastrous F-35 jet fighter .
Already the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken ( at a cumulative cost of $ 1.7 trillion over its lifetime ) , the Project On Government Oversight has determined that the F-35 may never truly be ready for combat .
Upgraded versions of current jet fighters integrated into a smaller Air Force would save tens of billions of dollars and be more effective .
President Trump ’ s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money , it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space .
You could add to the above billions in savings from cutting waste and bureaucracy at the Department of Defense .
To cite just two obvious examples , the Pentagon routinely overpays for spare parts and sustains a work force of more than 600,000 private contractors , many of whose jobs are either redundant or could be done more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the broken nature of the procurement process , the Air Force seriously contemplated paying $ 10,000 for a toilet seat cover and one contractor charged so much for a spare part that it stood to make a 4,451 percent profit on it .
Fixing the Pentagon ’ s procurement system and rolling back spending on private contractors could save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade .
And don ’ t forget the savings that could be had from reforming how the Pentagon does business , including , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researched and developed with taxpayer dollars .
As a Marine Corps captain wrote in The New York Times last year , the military too often lacks the “ right to repair ” its own equipment .
Acquisition laws written in the interests of defense contractors need to be revised so that the Department of Defense can negotiate fair and reasonable prices and auditors need to be empowered to root out waste , fraud , and abuse .
And , of course , in an institution that has never even successfully audited itself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceivable were you to be able to get inside it and take a serious look at its finances—and financial shenanigans ?
Even if the Biden administration could be persuaded to take a deeper look at the Pentagon ’ s spending priorities , it would still face immediate and stiff political obstacles .
The jobs generated by the Pentagon ’ s $ 700 billion-plus budget ( and the political funding of congressional representatives by defense companies ) have created a broad constituency in Congress poised to block any effort to close unnecessary military bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy-makers in Washington , it seems to matter not at all that virtually any other form of spending would create more jobs than throwing money at the Pentagon .
New infrastructure spending or a Green New Deal–style emphasis on creating a renewable energy economy would be guaranteed to generate at least one-and-a-half times as many jobs per dollar spent , while new expenditures on education would create twice as many .
Another impediment to change is the two-way revolving door between the Pentagon and the arms industry .
Senior government officials go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacts with former colleagues to curry favor for their corporate employers .
Meanwhile , arms-industry executives head for the Pentagon and other military-related government posts where they make policies that favor their former ( and possibly future ) employers .
Despite criticisms from both President Trump and his son Donald Jr. about the damaging influence of that very revolving door , expect former Trump administration officials to set up shop as lobbyists , join the boards of directors of major defense contractors , and otherwise ally themselves with arms makers like Raytheon Technologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Dynamics .
No one should be surprised either by early indications that figures with defense-industry ties will fill key policy positions in the Biden administration .
Robert Work , a former deputy secretary of defense and already an unofficial spokesman for the incoming administration , still sits on the board of Raytheon .
Michèle Flournoy , the most likely candidate for secretary of defense , and Anthony Blinken , whom Biden will nominate to be secretary of state , both work for a private consulting firm with undisclosed defense-industry clients .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as under Trump—three of his secretaries of defense served as board members , executives , or lobbyists for General Dynamics , Boeing , and Raytheon , respectively—the role of former industry advocates and employees in the Biden administration is nonetheless guaranteed to cause conflicts of interest .
“ Independent ” experts at influential inside-the-Beltway think tanks are already receiving millions of dollars from arms manufacturers and the Pentagon in an ongoing effort to shape any debates about future spending .
Meanwhile , individuals with close ties to that industry populate government panels like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which advocated in 2018 for a whopping 3–5 percent annual increase in Pentagon spending .
If their analyses of the supposedly abysmal state of national defense were true , a case would have been made for firing all the top civilian and military officials in the building , not for increased spending .
The best hope for reducing Pentagon spending is the collision between that department ’ s never-ending , ever-rising desires and the overriding economic and political realities of this difficult moment .
It ’ s simply not possible to fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of economic revival that would begin to address longstanding inequalities , no less a much-needed green revolution , while keeping the Pentagon budget at near-record levels .
Something will have to give and it shouldn ’ t be the civilian communities and businesses that have been most negatively impacted by the coronavirus .
As for politics , it ’ s important to remember that this year ’ s presidential election was decided primarily by voter concerns about Covid-19 and the economy , not by voters crying out for a continuation of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more money for the Pentagon .
The political clout of the military-industrial complex may diminish as Americans move forward , however chaotically , into a new era with radically different challenges to public health and safety .
The arms makers and their allies in Congress and the executive branch won ’ t give up without a fight when it comes to the pandemic of Pentagon spending .
You can count on that .
A crucial question of this moment is : Will fear , exaggerated threats , and pork-barrel politics be enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and happy , even as the urgent priorities of so many of the rest of us are starved of much-needed funding ?

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?
Now that Joe Biden is slated to take office as the 46th president of the United States, advice on how he should address a wide range of daunting problems is flooding in. Nowhere is there more at stake than when it comes to how he handles this country’s highly militarized foreign policy in general and Pentagon spending in particular.
Defense spending increased sharply in the Trump years and is now substantially higher than it was during the Korean or Vietnam War eras or during the massive military buildup President Ronald Reagan oversaw in the 1980s. Today, it consumes well over half of the nation’s discretionary budget, which just happens to also pay for a wide array of urgently needed priorities ranging from housing, job training, and alternative energy programs to public health and infrastructure building. At a time when pandemics, high unemployment, racial inequality, and climate change pose the greatest threats to our safety and security, this allocation of resources should be considered unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Pentagon and the arms industry have yet to get that memo. Defense company executives recently assured a Washington Post reporter that they are “unconcerned” about or consider unlikely the possibility that a Biden administration would significantly reduce Pentagon spending.
It’s easy enough to understand their confidence. Many of the officials rumored to soon be appointed to lead the Pentagon, including a number of former Obama administration figures, have spent the past few years working, either directly or indirectly, for defense contractors. Not surprisingly, then, their policy prescriptions emphasize some of the most expensive and risky military technologies imaginable like hypersonic weaponry. The expected next secretary of defense, Michèle Flournoy, has already insisted that Washington needs to make “big bets” on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence. Of course, she won’t be the one who will pay the price if they fail—or even if they succeed and take money that might have been used for crucial domestic purposes like health care in a pandemic moment. 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
Still, contrary to the wishes and hopes of the military-industrial complex and figures like Flournoy, there is a growing congressional interest in trying to bring runaway Pentagon spending under control. This July, for instance, Representative Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pushed parallel measures in the House and Senate to cut Pentagon spending by 10 percent, a savings of more than $70 billion that could have been put to good use elsewhere, including aid to increasingly desperate low-income communities. Although their initiatives lost, the very fact that they were proposed may be a turning point in a Congress that, for years, has signed off on whatever the Pentagon asked for, without resistance of any sort.
Think of those votes on Pentagon budget reductions as just the beginning of a long-term effort to tame that out-of-control institution. Representatives Pocan and Lee, for instance, created a defense-savings caucus in the House focused on going after misguided Department of Defense spending. During campaign 2020, both Joe Biden and the Democratic platform emphasized that this country and the world can indeed be made safer while spending less on the Pentagon.
Clearly, the fairy-tale explanation that more spending equals better security needs to be ditched. Will it happen soon? Who knows? At least it’s time for the rest of us to begin thinking about how much less should be spent on the Department of Defense and how to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent more wisely.
A Pentagon Spending Agenda for the Biden Administration
In reality, it’s not that complicated. Pentagon spending could easily be reduced substantially even as the world was made a safer place. For that to happen, however, its budget would have to begin to deal with the actual challenges this country faces rather than letting billions of dollars or more be squandered on outmoded military priorities and artificially inflated threats supposedly posed by our biggest adversaries. Current Issue View our current issue
One blueprint for doing just that has been put together by the Center for International Policy’s Sustainable Defense Task Force, a group of former White House, Pentagon, and congressional budget officials, retired military officers, and think-tank experts from across the political spectrum. They have crafted a plan to save $1.25 trillion from proposed Pentagon spending over the next decade.
As that task force notes, for durable reductions in such spending to become feasible, this country’s leadership would have to take a more realistic view of the military challenges posed by both China and Russia.
In recent years, the regime in Beijing has indeed been increasing its military spending, but when it comes to an armed presence in the Pacific region and the ability to make war there, the United States remains staggeringly stronger. As a start, it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons five to six times as large as China’s (though, of course, using it would mean a planetary Armageddon). And while Beijing’s influence is primarily focused on its own region, the US military has a historically unprecedented global reach, deploying nearly 200,000 troops overseas garrisoned on at least 800 military bases scattered across continents, and maintaining 11 aircraft carrier task forces to patrol the global seas. In reality, the sort of “arms race” with China now being considered will be costly and unnecessary, while only increasing the risk of war between those two nuclear-armed powers, an outcome to be avoided at all costs.
China’s real 21st century challenge to this country isn’t military at all, but political and economic in nature. Its leadership has focused on increasing that country’s power and influence through investment programs like its ever more global Belt and Road infrastructure initiative. Despite many problems, such efforts are clearly giving Beijing the sort of growing global clout, especially in the America First era of Donald Trump, that a hopeless attempt to match US military power never could. Add to this one other factor: If there’s to be any hope of preventing future pandemics from ravaging the planet, curbing the growing impact of climate change, or reviving a global economy that’s distinctly in the dumps, increased cooperation and transparency between the two greatest powers on the planet, not confrontation, will be a necessity.
As for Russia, a relatively shaky petro-state, its primary tools of influence in recent years have been propaganda, cyber-threats, and “hybrid warfare” on its peripheries (as in its use of local allies to destabilize Ukraine). Despite its still vast nuclear arsenal, Russia does not represent a traditional military challenge to the United States and so shouldn’t be used to justify another pointless Pentagon spending boost. To the extent that there is a military challenge from Russia, it can be more than adequately addressed by various European nations with the United States in a limited, supporting role. After all, European members of NATO cumulatively spend more than three times what Russia does on their militaries and far outpace it economically. Keep in mind that this just isn’t the Cold War era of the previous century. In reality, Russia’s economy is now smaller than Italy’s and Moscow is in no position to engage in an arms race even with the nations of Western Europe, no less Washington.
Despite its disastrous forever wars in distant lands, if the institution still often referred to as the “Department of Defense” were to refocus on actual national defense rather than global military domination, it could, as a start, instantly forgo a number of ill-conceived and staggeringly expensive new weapons systems. Those would range from plans to “modernize” the country’s already vast nuclear arsenal by buying a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines at a cost of up to$2 trillion to the fantasy of building up from current levels to a 500-ship Navy.
High on any list of programs to be instantly eliminated would be a proposed new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). As former secretary of defense William Perry has pointed out, ICBMs are among “the most dangerous weapons in the world” for a simple reason: A president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch such missiles upon being warned of another power using similar weaponry to attack the United States. Since, in the past, such warnings have proven anything but accurate, new weaponry of this sort will only increase the chances of an accidental nuclear war being started. The Pentagon has, however, already given the giant arms maker Northrop Grumman a sole-source contract and $13.3 billion to develop just such a new weapon, a down payment on a program that could ultimately cost $264 billion to build and operate. Funds like those could go far to meet other genuinely pressing national needs.
As for the nuclear arsenal’s upgrade as a whole, the organization Global Zero has outlined an alternative nuclear posture that would halt the Pentagon’s costly nuclear “modernization” plan, eliminate ICBMs altogether, and reduce the numbers of nuclear-armed bombers and submarines. The idea would be to switch the United States to a “deterrence only” strategy and dump the elaborate and dangerous nuclear war scenarios the Pentagon now swears by. The ultimate goal would, of course, be the global elimination of such weaponry, as called for in the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is slated to enter into force early next year.
Then there’s that dream (or nightmare) of a future Navy to deal with. Building up to a fleet of 500 ships is not just unaffordable, but a sign of the degree to which the Pentagon has an urge to run stark raving mad with taxpayer dollars. Even a previous plan to build 330 ships was so mismanaged that it left the Navy 50 ships short, $11 billion over budget, and years behind schedule. Rather than seeking to preserve the capability to have warships virtually everywhere on Earth all the time, the Navy set up to surge into areas of tension could be roughly half the size of the 500-ship one and still be powerful beyond words.
More savings could easily be found by ending the procurement of unworkable weapons systems like Lockheed Martin’s disastrous F-35 jet fighter. Already the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken (at a cumulative cost of $1.7 trillion over its lifetime), the Project On Government Oversight has determined that the F-35 may never truly be ready for combat. Upgraded versions of current jet fighters integrated into a smaller Air Force would save tens of billions of dollars and be more effective.
President Trump’s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received a major boost during his tenure. A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money, it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space.
You could add to the above billions in savings from cutting waste and bureaucracy at the Department of Defense. To cite just two obvious examples, the Pentagon routinely overpays for spare parts and sustains a work force of more than 600,000 private contractors, many of whose jobs are either redundant or could be done more cheaply by government employees. Symbolic of the broken nature of the procurement process, the Air Force seriously contemplated paying $10,000 for a toilet seat cover and one contractor charged so much for a spare part that it stood to make a 4,451 percent profit on it. Fixing the Pentagon’s procurement system and rolling back spending on private contractors could save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
And don’t forget the savings that could be had from reforming how the Pentagon does business, including, for example, retaining intellectual property rights to weapon systems researched and developed with taxpayer dollars. As a Marine Corps captain wrote in The New York Times last year, the military too often lacks the “right to repair” its own equipment. Acquisition laws written in the interests of defense contractors need to be revised so that the Department of Defense can negotiate fair and reasonable prices and auditors need to be empowered to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.
And, of course, in an institution that has never even successfully audited itself, who knows what other savings might be conceivable were you to be able to get inside it and take a serious look at its finances—and financial shenanigans?
Obstacles to Change
Even if the Biden administration could be persuaded to take a deeper look at the Pentagon’s spending priorities, it would still face immediate and stiff political obstacles. The jobs generated by the Pentagon’s $700 billion-plus budget (and the political funding of congressional representatives by defense companies) have created a broad constituency in Congress poised to block any effort to close unnecessary military bases or defund major weapons programs. To policy-makers in Washington, it seems to matter not at all that virtually any other form of spending would create more jobs than throwing money at the Pentagon. New infrastructure spending or a Green New Deal–style emphasis on creating a renewable energy economy would be guaranteed to generate at least one-and-a-half times as many jobs per dollar spent, while new expenditures on education would create twice as many.
Another impediment to change is the two-way revolving door between the Pentagon and the arms industry. Senior government officials go to work for weapons makers, using their contacts with former colleagues to curry favor for their corporate employers. Meanwhile, arms-industry executives head for the Pentagon and other military-related government posts where they make policies that favor their former (and possibly future) employers. Despite criticisms from both President Trump and his son Donald Jr. about the damaging influence of that very revolving door, expect former Trump administration officials to set up shop as lobbyists, join the boards of directors of major defense contractors, and otherwise ally themselves with arms makers like Raytheon Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics.
No one should be surprised either by early indications that figures with defense-industry ties will fill key policy positions in the Biden administration. Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense and already an unofficial spokesman for the incoming administration, still sits on the board of Raytheon. Michèle Flournoy, the most likely candidate for secretary of defense, and Anthony Blinken, whom Biden will nominate to be secretary of state, both work for a private consulting firm with undisclosed defense-industry clients. While this practice may not be as prevalent as under Trump—three of his secretaries of defense served as board members, executives, or lobbyists for General Dynamics, Boeing, and Raytheon, respectively—the role of former industry advocates and employees in the Biden administration is nonetheless guaranteed to cause conflicts of interest.
“Independent” experts at influential inside-the-Beltway think tanks are already receiving millions of dollars from arms manufacturers and the Pentagon in an ongoing effort to shape any debates about future spending. Meanwhile, individuals with close ties to that industry populate government panels like the congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Commission, which advocated in 2018 for a whopping 3–5 percent annual increase in Pentagon spending. If their analyses of the supposedly abysmal state of national defense were true, a case would have been made for firing all the top civilian and military officials in the building, not for increased spending.
Possibilities for Change
The best hope for reducing Pentagon spending is the collision between that department’s never-ending, ever-rising desires and the overriding economic and political realities of this difficult moment. It’s simply not possible to fund pandemic prevention, as well as any kind of economic revival that would begin to address longstanding inequalities, no less a much-needed green revolution, while keeping the Pentagon budget at near-record levels. Something will have to give and it shouldn’t be the civilian communities and businesses that have been most negatively impacted by the coronavirus.
As for politics, it’s important to remember that this year’s presidential election was decided primarily by voter concerns about Covid-19 and the economy, not by voters crying out for a continuation of America’s endless wars or demanding yet more money for the Pentagon. The political clout of the military-industrial complex may diminish as Americans move forward, however chaotically, into a new era with radically different challenges to public health and safety.
The arms makers and their allies in Congress and the executive branch won’t give up without a fight when it comes to the pandemic of Pentagon spending. You can count on that. A crucial question of this moment is: Will fear, exaggerated threats, and pork-barrel politics be enough to keep the Pentagon and its contractors fat and happy, even as the urgent priorities of so many of the rest of us are starved of much-needed funding?


thenation--2020-11-30--Will Biden Condemn the Assassination of an Iranian Scientist?

On Friday , top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was shot and killed while travelling in northern Iran .
No one has claimed responsibility for the killing , but both the Iranian government and many outside observers point to the likelihood of Israeli involvement , possibly with American assistance .
As The New York Times reports , “ One American official—along with two other intelligence officials—said that Israel was behind the attack on the scientist .
It was unclear how much the United States may have known about the operation in advance , but the two nations are the closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding Iran.
” In a statement on Saturday , President Hassan Rouhani blamed Israel and vowed revenge .
He also made an interesting aside that carried the implication that changes in American politics might be a factor .
“ This brutal assassination shows that our enemies are passing through anxious weeks , weeks that they feel their pressure era is coming to an end and the global conditions are changing , ” Rouhani said .
The “ anxious weeks ” could be a reference to the transition between Donald Trump and Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pressure era ” is an allusion to the hostile policies of intensified sanctions and unconventional military attacks , known as “ maximum pressure , ” that have been carried out by President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
Biden has promised to reenter the Iran nuclear deal .
It ’ s difficult not to see the assassination of Fakhrizadeh as part of a deliberate effort to make any rapprochement much more difficult .
On November 17 , more than a week before the murder , the Times reported , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duck , is moving quickly to increase American sanctions against Iran and sell advanced weapons to its regional enemies , policies that would be difficult for a new president to reverse .
Last week , he asked his advisers for options to launch a military strike against Iran but appears to have been talked out of it .
His aides argued that an attack could quickly lead to a larger war.
” The assassination seems like a way to achieve some of the goals of the military strike that the military dissuaded Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served under both George H.W .
Bush and Bill Clinton , argued against the idea that the killing was designed to scuttle Biden ’ s diplomacy , tweeting , “ One can debate the logic of killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh .
But to argue it was done to frustrate the incoming Biden Administration ignores reality .
Such an operation takes extensive planning , having operatives on the ground , actionable intelligence .
It can ’ t be spur of the moment.
” Ross isn ’ t very convincing .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the move from a preexisting plan to an actual operation can be made relatively rapidly .
It strains credulity to maintain that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , a longtime opponent of the Iran nuclear deal , was not mindful of Biden ’ s victory .
Netanyahu can read a calendar , and he knew that the time to constrain Biden was running out .
The final weeks of Trump ’ s administration are crucial not just for Netanyahu but also for other opponents of the Iran deal , including allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-level communication between the Trump White House and its counterparts in Israel and Saudi Arabia makes plausible the idea that there is a concerted effort to create a crisis that will sabotage Biden ’ s diplomacy before it even starts .
Pompeo recently visited Israel , giving a thumbs up to West Bank settlements .
Is it possible that trip was part of a hidden quid pro quo that includes the killing of Fakhrizadeh ?
Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is currently in the Middle East meeting Saudi leaders .
Again , the timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret deals .
Biden now faces a real test .
The assassination of Fakhrizadeh was quite likely not just a crime but also an attempt to humiliate Biden himself .
The United States has only one president at a time , so Biden isn ’ t in a position to condemn the attack .
Writing in the Times , Barbara Slavin , director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council , noted that Biden and his team “ can not do much more than message through the media to Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 20—and to the Israelis to stop their campaign of sabotage.
” So far , the strongest words on the attack have come from Trump critics who are far removed from being official voices of the incoming president .
Former CIA director John O. Brennan tweeted , “ This was a criminal act & highly reckless .
It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict .
Iranian leaders would be wise to wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage & to resist the urge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omar cited Brennan ’ s words and added , “ Speaking out against violations of international law isn ’ t partisan issue , it ’ s also not being on the side of Iran .
It ’ s about balance and not plunging the world into more chaotic state than we are already in.
” It ’ s impossible to imagine Biden being as forthright as Brennan or Omar .
In fact , there ’ s evidence that Biden ’ s foreign policy team is actually retreating on its commitment to rejoin the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jake Sullivan , newly appointed to be Biden ’ s national security adviser , said the United States could return to the deal “ if Iran returns to compliance , for its obligations that it has been violating , and is prepared to advance good-faith negotiations on these follow-on agreements.
” The proviso that compliance would have to be augmented by new negotiations seems like a push for a harder line than Biden ’ s previous position .
It ’ s not clear that Iran would accept this proviso .
David Sanger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plausible scenario whereby the assassination ignites a new cycle of violence : Pressure is already mounting for some response—either a calculated one , presumably on the orders of the supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , or an unscripted lashing out , perhaps by a rogue element of the Iranian military or an Iranian-sponsored militia that does not get the memo to wait for Inauguration Day .
That may be exactly what Mr. Netanyahu—and Mr. Trump and his advisers—is betting on .
Any retaliation could result in American military action , exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued out of , two weeks ago when news came that Iran was continuing to produce nuclear fuel above the limits of the 2015 accord .
( That move , of course , was in response to Mr. Trump ’ s decision in mid-2018 to break out of the agreement himself . )
If Sanger is right , then Biden ’ s first and most important task upon assuming office will be to defuse this crisis .
To do so , he ’ ll have to move beyond the safe zone of simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with Iran .
Rather , Biden will have to make a bolder call condemning those who tried to sabotage his foreign policy .
If the evidence points in that direction , this will include calling out Israel and possible accomplices like Saudi Arabia .
This will be a hard task , but it is absolutely essential , and not just for the sake of Iran policy .
If Biden is going to have any success as president , he has to show he ’ s willing to fight those who are trying @ @ @ @

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?
On Friday, top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was shot and killed while travelling in northern Iran. No one has claimed responsibility for the killing, but both the Iranian government and many outside observers point to the likelihood of Israeli involvement, possibly with American assistance. As The New York Times reports, “One American official—along with two other intelligence officials—said that Israel was behind the attack on the scientist. It was unclear how much the United States may have known about the operation in advance, but the two nations are the closest of allies and have long shared intelligence regarding Iran.”
In a statement on Saturday, President Hassan Rouhani blamed Israel and vowed revenge. He also made an interesting aside that carried the implication that changes in American politics might be a factor. “This brutal assassination shows that our enemies are passing through anxious weeks, weeks that they feel their pressure era is coming to an end and the global conditions are changing,” Rouhani said. The “anxious weeks” could be a reference to the transition between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. If that’s so, “pressure era” is an allusion to the hostile policies of intensified sanctions and unconventional military attacks, known as “maximum pressure,” that have been carried out by President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Biden has promised to reenter the Iran nuclear deal. It’s difficult not to see the assassination of Fakhrizadeh as part of a deliberate effort to make any rapprochement much more difficult. On November 17, more than a week before the murder, the Times reported, “President Trump, even as a lame duck, is moving quickly to increase American sanctions against Iran and sell advanced weapons to its regional enemies, policies that would be difficult for a new president to reverse. Last week, he asked his advisers for options to launch a military strike against Iran but appears to have been talked out of it. His aides argued that an attack could quickly lead to a larger war.” The assassination seems like a way to achieve some of the goals of the military strike that the military dissuaded Trump from launching.
Diplomat Dennis Ross, who served under both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, argued against the idea that the killing was designed to scuttle Biden’s diplomacy, tweeting, “One can debate the logic of killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. But to argue it was done to frustrate the incoming Biden Administration ignores reality. Such an operation takes extensive planning, having operatives on the ground, actionable intelligence. It can’t be spur of the moment.” More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
Ross isn’t very convincing. Of course, an assassination like this needs long planning. But the move from a preexisting plan to an actual operation can be made relatively rapidly. It strains credulity to maintain that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, was not mindful of Biden’s victory. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
Netanyahu can read a calendar, and he knew that the time to constrain Biden was running out. The final weeks of Trump’s administration are crucial not just for Netanyahu but also for other opponents of the Iran deal, including allies like Saudi Arabia. Ample reporting of high-level communication between the Trump White House and its counterparts in Israel and Saudi Arabia makes plausible the idea that there is a concerted effort to create a crisis that will sabotage Biden’s diplomacy before it even starts. Pompeo recently visited Israel, giving a thumbs up to West Bank settlements. Is it possible that trip was part of a hidden quid pro quo that includes the killing of Fakhrizadeh? Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is currently in the Middle East meeting Saudi leaders. Again, the timing of the visit raises questions about possible secret deals.
Biden now faces a real test. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh was quite likely not just a crime but also an attempt to humiliate Biden himself. The United States has only one president at a time, so Biden isn’t in a position to condemn the attack. Writing in the Times, Barbara Slavin, director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, noted that Biden and his team “cannot do much more than message through the media to Iran to stay patient until the inauguration on Jan. 20—and to the Israelis to stop their campaign of sabotage.” Current Issue View our current issue
So far, the strongest words on the attack have come from Trump critics who are far removed from being official voices of the incoming president. Former CIA director John O. Brennan tweeted, “This was a criminal act & highly reckless. It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict. Iranian leaders would be wise to wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage & to resist the urge to respond against perceived culprits.” Representative Ilhan Omar cited Brennan’s words and added, “Speaking out against violations of international law isn’t partisan issue, it’s also not being on the side of Iran. It’s about balance and not plunging the world into more chaotic state than we are already in.”
It’s impossible to imagine Biden being as forthright as Brennan or Omar. In fact, there’s evidence that Biden’s foreign policy team is actually retreating on its commitment to rejoin the nuclear deal. Speaking to the Times, Jake Sullivan, newly appointed to be Biden’s national security adviser, said the United States could return to the deal “if Iran returns to compliance, for its obligations that it has been violating, and is prepared to advance good-faith negotiations on these follow-on agreements.” The proviso that compliance would have to be augmented by new negotiations seems like a push for a harder line than Biden’s previous position. It’s not clear that Iran would accept this proviso.
David Sanger of The New York Times lays out a plausible scenario whereby the assassination ignites a new cycle of violence:
Pressure is already mounting for some response—either a calculated one, presumably on the orders of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or an unscripted lashing out, perhaps by a rogue element of the Iranian military or an Iranian-sponsored militia that does not get the memo to wait for Inauguration Day. That may be exactly what Mr. Netanyahu—and Mr. Trump and his advisers—is betting on. Any retaliation could result in American military action, exactly what Mr. Trump contemplated, and was argued out of, two weeks ago when news came that Iran was continuing to produce nuclear fuel above the limits of the 2015 accord. (That move, of course, was in response to Mr. Trump’s decision in mid-2018 to break out of the agreement himself.)
If Sanger is right, then Biden’s first and most important task upon assuming office will be to defuse this crisis. To do so, he’ll have to move beyond the safe zone of simply reiterating a desire to resume the nuclear deal with Iran. Rather, Biden will have to make a bolder call condemning those who tried to sabotage his foreign policy. If the evidence points in that direction, this will include calling out Israel and possible accomplices like Saudi Arabia. This will be a hard task, but it is absolutely essential, and not just for the sake of Iran policy. If Biden is going to have any success as president, he has to show he’s willing to fight those who are trying to undermine him.


thenation--2020-11-30--Trump’s Trying to Take the Internet Down With Him

Donald Trump has lost the popular vote by more than 6.25 million ballots .
Court decisions , recounts , and state certifications have confirmed that the Republican secured just 232 electoral votes to 306 for Democrat Joe Biden .
Despite Trump ’ s false claim that “ the 2020 Election was a total scam , ” he ’ s on his way out of office .
Unfortunately , a slow process of transition allows lame-duck presidents to do great damage during the two and a half months between Election Day in November and Inauguration Day in January , and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest danger the soon-to-be-former president poses may be to the honest discourse that remains the lifeblood of American democracy : a free press .
Trump ’ s presidency can be understood as a four-year assault on journalism , in which he has attacked individual reporters , newspapers , and television news networks with a fury that was evident on Thanksgiving Day , when he held a deranged press conference—while seated at a “ kid ’ s table ” desk—and started ranting in response to Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason ’ s question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss .
“ Don ’ t talk to me that way , ” raged Trump .
“ You ’ re just a lightweight .
Don ’ t talk to me [ like ] that—I ’ m the president of the United States .
Don ’ t ever talk to the president that way.
” Trump ’ s tantrum produced a mocking Twitter hashtag— # DiaperDon—that trended to the top of social media and embarrassed the egomaniacal president to such an extent that he snapped and raged—falsely : “ Twitter is sending out totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world .
They make it up , and only negative ‘ stuff.
’ ” Then he tweeted something that should unsettle everyone who understands the role of social media in modern political communications : “ For purposes of National Security , Section 230 must be immediately terminated !
!
!
” Want to Be Like FDR , Joe Biden ?
Make Your Thanksgiving Proclamations Rallying Cries Rudy Giuliani Went to Court and Made a Compelling Argument—for His Own Disbarment Georgia GOP Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law Crafted by Congress in 1996 , Section 230 declares , “ No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
” As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains , “ It shields websites from legal liability for the material users post on their platforms .
Section 230 also gives these sites the leeway they need to moderate content that violates their community standards.
” Trump doesn ’ t like that moderation , as it identifies his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration petitioned the Federal Communications Commission—where a 3-2 Republican majority has frequently done the president ’ s bidding—with a demand that commissioners craft a rule that could gut Section 230 protections .
That ’ s incredibly dangerous .
“ If the FCC grants the administration ’ s proposal , no websites or platforms would be able to set their own standards for their online communities , ” explains Gaurav Laroia , the senior counsel for the grassroots media and democracy group Free Press .
“ It would seriously threaten the ability of marginalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the government forcing them to allow racist and sexist interlopers into every conversation .
It would leave sites little choice but to drown in posts from bigots , propagandists , conspiracy theorists and trolls.
” Vigilance is going to be required on every front to reduce the harm that Trump can do before January 20 .
But defenders of the honest discourse that underpins democracy should be especially alert to the threat posed by the prospect that Trump ’ s FCC minions might respond to a presidential fit of pique by scheming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call out presidential lies .

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?
Donald Trump has lost the popular vote by more than 6.25 million ballots. Court decisions, recounts, and state certifications have confirmed that the Republican secured just 232 electoral votes to 306 for Democrat Joe Biden. Despite Trump’s false claim that “the 2020 Election was a total scam,” he’s on his way out of office.
Unfortunately, a slow process of transition allows lame-duck presidents to do great damage during the two and a half months between Election Day in November and Inauguration Day in January, and Trump is already at it. But the greatest danger the soon-to-be-former president poses may be to the honest discourse that remains the lifeblood of American democracy: a free press.
Trump’s presidency can be understood as a four-year assault on journalism, in which he has attacked individual reporters, newspapers, and television news networks with a fury that was evident on Thanksgiving Day, when he held a deranged press conference—while seated at a “kid’s table” desk—and started ranting in response to Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason’s question about when Trump might finally concede his loss. “Don’t talk to me that way,” raged Trump. “You’re just a lightweight. Don’t talk to me [like] that—I’m the president of the United States. Don’t ever talk to the president that way.”
Trump’s tantrum produced a mocking Twitter hashtag—#DiaperDon—that trended to the top of social media and embarrassed the egomaniacal president to such an extent that he snapped and raged—falsely: “Twitter is sending out totally false ‘Trends;’ that have absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world. They make it up, and only negative ‘stuff.’” Then he tweeted something that should unsettle everyone who understands the role of social media in modern political communications: “For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!” 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
Crafted by Congress in 1996, Section 230 declares, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, “It shields websites from legal liability for the material users post on their platforms. Section 230 also gives these sites the leeway they need to moderate content that violates their community standards.”
Trump doesn’t like that moderation, as it identifies his lies. In July, the Trump administration petitioned the Federal Communications Commission—where a 3-2 Republican majority has frequently done the president’s bidding—with a demand that commissioners craft a rule that could gut Section 230 protections. That’s incredibly dangerous.
“If the FCC grants the administration’s proposal, no websites or platforms would be able to set their own standards for their online communities,” explains Gaurav Laroia, the senior counsel for the grassroots media and democracy group Free Press. “It would seriously threaten the ability of marginalized groups to organize and express their views without the government forcing them to allow racist and sexist interlopers into every conversation. It would leave sites little choice but to drown in posts from bigots, propagandists, conspiracy theorists and trolls.”
Vigilance is going to be required on every front to reduce the harm that Trump can do before January 20. But defenders of the honest discourse that underpins democracy should be especially alert to the threat posed by the prospect that Trump’s FCC minions might respond to a presidential fit of pique by scheming to undermine the ability of social media to call out presidential lies.


thenation--2020-12-01--John Wilson’s Magically Poignant Urban Histories

John Wilson rarely appears on-screen in his HBO docuseries How To… With John Wilson , despite being its star and namesake .
When he does , he ’ s usually standing in front of a reflective surface like a mirror or a window , holding a camera , with his eye looking through the viewfinder , and staring straight ahead .
The series documents his seemingly habitual need to film everything around him .
He compulsively chronicles his life from behind the camera , observing his immediate surroundings and preserving an image of fluctuating New York neighborhoods .
Wilson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archivist doesn ’ t typically place him in the frame , but his ubiquitous voice-over contextualizes and dictates everything we see .
Eventually , some patterns emerge in Wilson ’ s footage : the piles of trash that fill New York ’ s streets , milling crowds circulating through Midtown Manhattan , NYPD officers either on the job or loitering about , and leashed dogs defecating on the sidewalk .
But Wilson ’ s camera prefers to fix on people engaged in public in unguarded private moments , surrounded by strangers and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrepressibly present .
His gaze quickly becomes our own , and we see the world through his eyes , where seemingly everyone can be alone in a crowd .
Each episode of the docuseries follows Wilson as he ostensibly explains how to do something , like “ Make Small Talk ” or “ Split the Check.
” Instead of offering step-by-step instructions , Wilson uses the topic as a springboard to explore his pet interests , broadly staying on theme but rarely on task .
The format of How To… remains consistent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ How To Improve Your Memory ” starts with Wilson ’ s attempts to remember his grocery list , using the “ memory palace ” technique ( a memory enhancement strategy that associates information with an imagined spatial environment ) and ends with him attending the first ever conference on the Mandela Effect , where people share conspiracy theories about the origins of collective false memories , such as the spellings of popular brand names like Febreze ( they remember it as “ Febreeze ” ) and Oscar Mayer ( “ Oscar Meyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Up Scaffolding ” takes the form of a film essay that traces the history of the seemingly ever expanding presence of scaffolding in New York City and its role in an environment that ’ s forever under construction .
In “ How To Cover Your Furniture , ” Wilson details his daily struggle to keep his cat from clawing his furniture , but it eventually transitions into a look at the anti-circumcision movement , culminating in an interview with a man who showcases his foreskin extension device .
Wilson ’ s footage primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensures that every installment feels distinct , so that How To… can be a memoir or a travelogue or an instance of observational cinema , depending on the material .
Wilson ’ s filmmaking instincts are generally comedic , with the humor in How To… assuming multiple forms .
Sometimes it takes the shape of interviews with various local eccentrics eager to be on camera , somewhat similar to the material in Nathan for You , the former Comedy Central series from Nathan Fielder , an executive producer on How To… Other times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vocal delivery , especially its halting cadence ( peppered with plenty of “ uh ’ s ” and split-second pauses ) , or his snarky descriptions of events , as when he describes a faulty Ronald McDonald float in the Macy ’ s Thanksgiving Day Parade as “ Ronald ’ s deflating carcass…being pulverized in the middle of 42nd street while spectators watched in horror.
” The comedy in How To… always works in tandem with its anthropological inclination .
Unlike Fielder , Wilson doesn ’ t necessarily strive to create chaos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes from living within chaos .
The show ’ s comedy mainly lies in cheeky juxtapositions between Wilson ’ s narration and his visual footage .
In “ How To Make Small Talk , ” Wilson , in voice-over , remarks , “ When someone opens up to you , you might feel the need to reciprocate out of politeness ” laid over a scene of a fireman releasing water from a hydrant .
When he follows that up with , ” But this comes with a big risk because an exchange of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in a relationship that you ’ re not prepared for , ” we see a paper cup floating down the street in the pool of water from the hydrant .
Visual puns proliferate in each scene of How To… and force the audience to make offbeat connections between sound and image .
When Wilson mentions that he needs to pick up some broccoli from the grocery , we see a fallen tree whose leaves look like a broccoli head .
When Wilson grouses that the city “ still lets the pigs go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a man walking his pet pig behind two cops talking with each other .
Wilson developed his voice and aesthetic over the past decade through creating short films in the same vein as How To… , most of which are available to watch for free on his website .
His short films and the HBO series can be enjoyed purely as a vehicle for funny found material or oddball interviews , but How To… clarifies Wilson ’ s artistic project as a special kind of examination of urban living .
“ How To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Cover Your Furniture ” explicitly tackle the ways in which New York City makes daily life increasingly more inhospitable for its residents , whether it ’ s because they ’ re surrounded by unsafe construction , or are forced to deal with architectural modifications ( like spikes on storefront ledges or high dividers on subway benches ) that are hostile to the homeless .
While Wilson clearly holds an affection for New York , judging by the plethora of sequences featuring adoring shots of the Manhattan skyline and outer borough neighborhoods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How To… isn ’ t some uncomplicated “ love letter ” to the city .
Rather , it ’ s an implicit interrogation into the ways urban planning marginalizes vulnerable people , often in exchange for profit .
Apart from the urban critique , it ’ s the explicitly personal nature of his approach that sets Wilson ’ s series apart from everything else currently on television .
This partly because we see almost everything from his perspective and his voice frequently rings in our heads .
But it ’ s also because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was pilfered from a home video collection that would seemingly exist with or without a show to broadcast it .
We learn in “ How To Improve Your Memory ” that Wilson has kept a handwritten personal diary that lists everything he does every day for over a decade , and this preservationist attitude extends to his filmmaking .
His HBO show feels like a natural progression of his DIY work , only with a scaled-up budget and a larger platform , which isn ’ t something that can be said about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms .
How To… is sui generis because it never gives the impression that it ’ s been engineered to fit the taste profiles of a given demographic .
It looks and sounds entirely like itself , like something that John Wilson himself would watch .
The season finale of How To… features footage shot before and during the initial Covid lockdown in March , a time when people were stockpiling groceries and toilet paper for what we hoped was a brief period of limbo .
The Covid-specific material Wilson shot has historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a one-man crew and taking on all the liability , could still operate a TV production when almost everyone else could not .
Still , it ’ s telling that he doesn ’ t reach for grand statements and mostly filters his lockdown experience through his relationship with his sweet elderly landlady , with whom he watches Jeopardy !
and sometimes shares dinner .
Since she ’ s in precarious health , Wilson keeps his distance , despite living literally right above her , and acutely feels the separation .
By intimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he perfectly encapsulates the physical and emotional displacement that has become standard during this time .
It ’ s this simple way of working that elevates How To… beyond the realm of mere comedy into something more meaningful : a diaristic art piece that reflects modern life through the prism of an everyday urban historian .

This article appears in the January 11/18, 2021 issue.
John Wilson rarely appears on-screen in his HBO docuseries How To… With John Wilson, despite being its star and namesake. When he does, he’s usually standing in front of a reflective surface like a mirror or a window, holding a camera, with his eye looking through the viewfinder, and staring straight ahead. The series documents his seemingly habitual need to film everything around him. He compulsively chronicles his life from behind the camera, observing his immediate surroundings and preserving an image of fluctuating New York neighborhoods. Wilson’s dual roles as a memoirist and archivist doesn’t typically place him in the frame, but his ubiquitous voice-over contextualizes and dictates everything we see. Eventually, some patterns emerge in Wilson’s footage: the piles of trash that fill New York’s streets, milling crowds circulating through Midtown Manhattan, NYPD officers either on the job or loitering about, and leashed dogs defecating on the sidewalk. But Wilson’s camera prefers to fix on people engaged in public in unguarded private moments, surrounded by strangers and with the specters of gentrification and urban renewal irrepressibly present. His gaze quickly becomes our own, and we see the world through his eyes, where seemingly everyone can be alone in a crowd.
Each episode of the docuseries follows Wilson as he ostensibly explains how to do something, like “Make Small Talk” or “Split the Check.” Instead of offering step-by-step instructions, Wilson uses the topic as a springboard to explore his pet interests, broadly staying on theme but rarely on task. The format of How To… remains consistent and familiar while allowing for maximum flexibility. “How To Improve Your Memory” starts with Wilson’s attempts to remember his grocery list, using the “memory palace” technique (a memory enhancement strategy that associates information with an imagined spatial environment) and ends with him attending the first ever conference on the Mandela Effect, where people share conspiracy theories about the origins of collective false memories, such as the spellings of popular brand names like Febreze (they remember it as “Febreeze”) and Oscar Mayer (“Oscar Meyer”). “How To Put Up Scaffolding” takes the form of a film essay that traces the history of the seemingly ever expanding presence of scaffolding in New York City and its role in an environment that’s forever under construction. In “How To Cover Your Furniture,” Wilson details his daily struggle to keep his cat from clawing his furniture, but it eventually transitions into a look at the anti-circumcision movement, culminating in an interview with a man who showcases his foreskin extension device. Wilson’s footage primarily dictates each episode’s structure and ensures that every installment feels distinct, so that How To… can be a memoir or a travelogue or an instance of observational cinema, depending on the material.
Wilson’s filmmaking instincts are generally comedic, with the humor in How To… assuming multiple forms. Sometimes it takes the shape of interviews with various local eccentrics eager to be on camera, somewhat similar to the material in Nathan for You, the former Comedy Central series from Nathan Fielder, an executive producer on How To… Other times, jokes lie in Wilson’s vocal delivery, especially its halting cadence (peppered with plenty of “uh’s” and split-second pauses), or his snarky descriptions of events, as when he describes a faulty Ronald McDonald float in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade as “Ronald’s deflating carcass…being pulverized in the middle of 42nd street while spectators watched in horror.” The comedy in How To… always works in tandem with its anthropological inclination. Unlike Fielder, Wilson doesn’t necessarily strive to create chaos, but rather observes the mundane absurdity that comes from living within chaos. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
The show’s comedy mainly lies in cheeky juxtapositions between Wilson’s narration and his visual footage. In “How To Make Small Talk,” Wilson, in voice-over, remarks, “When someone opens up to you, you might feel the need to reciprocate out of politeness” laid over a scene of a fireman releasing water from a hydrant. When he follows that up with,”But this comes with a big risk because an exchange of feelings may cause you to be swept up in a relationship that you’re not prepared for,”we see a paper cup floating down the street in the pool of water from the hydrant. Visual puns proliferate in each scene of How To… and force the audience to make offbeat connections between sound and image. When Wilson mentions that he needs to pick up some broccoli from the grocery, we see a fallen tree whose leaves look like a broccoli head. When Wilson grouses that the city “still lets the pigs go wherever they want,” we see a man walking his pet pig behind two cops talking with each other.
Wilson developed his voice and aesthetic over the past decade through creating short films in the same vein as How To…, most of which are available to watch for free on his website. His short films and the HBO series can be enjoyed purely as a vehicle for funny found material or oddball interviews, but How To… clarifies Wilson’s artistic project as a special kind of examination of urban living. “How To Put Up Scaffolding” and “How To Cover Your Furniture” explicitly tackle the ways in which New York City makes daily life increasingly more inhospitable for its residents, whether it’s because they’re surrounded by unsafe construction, or are forced to deal with architectural modifications (like spikes on storefront ledges or high dividers on subway benches) that are hostile to the homeless. While Wilson clearly holds an affection for New York, judging by the plethora of sequences featuring adoring shots of the Manhattan skyline and outer borough neighborhoods, not to mention everyday New Yorkers, How To… isn’t some uncomplicated “love letter” to the city. Rather, it’s an implicit interrogation into the ways urban planning marginalizes vulnerable people, often in exchange for profit.
Apart from the urban critique, it’s the explicitly personal nature of his approach that sets Wilson’s series apart from everything else currently on television. This partly because we see almost everything from his perspective and his voice frequently rings in our heads. But it’s also because so much of How To… feels like it was pilfered from a home video collection that would seemingly exist with or without a show to broadcast it. We learn in “How To Improve Your Memory” that Wilson has kept a handwritten personal diary that lists everything he does every day for over a decade, and this preservationist attitude extends to his filmmaking. His HBO show feels like a natural progression of his DIY work, only with a scaled-up budget and a larger platform, which isn’t something that can be said about the myriad content options that populate streaming platforms. How To… is sui generis because it never gives the impression that it’s been engineered to fit the taste profiles of a given demographic. It looks and sounds entirely like itself, like something that John Wilson himself would watch.
The season finale of How To… features footage shot before and during the initial Covid lockdown in March, a time when people were stockpiling groceries and toilet paper for what we hoped was a brief period of limbo. The Covid-specific material Wilson shot has historical value, if only because he, being a one-man crew and taking on all the liability, could still operate a TV production when almost everyone else could not. Still, it’s telling that he doesn’t reach for grand statements and mostly filters his lockdown experience through his relationship with his sweet elderly landlady, with whom he watches Jeopardy! and sometimes shares dinner. Since she’s in precarious health, Wilson keeps his distance, despite living literally right above her, and acutely feels the separation. By intimately filming his own surroundings and relationships, he perfectly encapsulates the physical and emotional displacement that has become standard during this time. It’s this simple way of working that elevates How To… beyond the realm of mere comedy into something more meaningful: a diaristic art piece that reflects modern life through the prism of an everyday urban historian.


thenation--2020-12-01--Removing Trump Is Not Enough. He Must Be Prosecuted.

Inauguration Day is only seven weeks away .
In “ normal ” times , the outgoing president and his team would at this point be facilitating a smooth transfer of power—tying up a few policy loose ends , but generally making way for the new president and acknowledging the new political priorities of that president .
None of that is happening with Donald Trump .
In fact , quite the reverse .
Day by day , reports emerge of new efforts to lock into place Trump ’ s extremist agenda .
That ’ s the Signal .
Over the weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration is ramping up deportations of asylum seekers from Africa and Haiti , in an apparent effort to keep Black people from obtaining residency .
The newspaper revealed that in recent weeks more than 100 such men and women have been coerced onto deportation flights , often after being physically assaulted by ICE officers .
Many of these individuals have family in the United States , and many had open asylum cases still wending their way through the court system when they were deported .
Some of the men were , apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over their heads—a brutal image , and one reminiscent of how US forces transported captured Al Qaeda suspects at the height of the War on Terror .
Not content with these egregious rights violations against asylum seekers already in the country , the administration is also dramatically accelerating border wall construction , aiming to lock out undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers alike .
Mile upon mile of new wall is going up in these final weeks of Trump ’ s presidency , at a staggering environmental and financial cost .
In some remote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now costing US taxpayers $ 41 million per mile , and environmental habitats vital to the well-being of numerous animal species are being dynamited and mined into devastation .
The aim , apparently , is to present the wall as a fait accompli , thus making it politically impossible for Joe Biden to dismantle it .
The GOP Is in a State of Terminal Decay Meanwhile , the administration is moving ahead with an extraordinary regulatory change that effectively shreds civil service employment protections for thousands of government employees—including hundreds of Office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as at-will political appointees , and who can thus be fired by the president if they are not politically loyal .
This change is an assault on the professionalized , apolitical civil service , which was put in place in the decades following the Civil War to stamp out rampant corruption .
And it kicks in literally the day before the inauguration , so it ’ s possible that Trump ’ s final Fuck you not just to Biden but to the American system of governance itself will be a wholesale purge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his presidency .
Internationally , last week saw the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh , Iran ’ s top nuclear scientist .
It was a suitably macabre bookend to a year that began with Washington ’ s assassination of a top Iranian general , which almost triggered yet another regional war in the Middle East .
Now the final weeks of 2020 are likely to be equally tense , thanks to an extrajudicial killing that was likely carried out either by Israeli or US operatives .
The effect could well be to ratchet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States so much that Biden will be boxed in after assuming the presidency , and thus unable to reenter the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran .
Of course , it wouldn ’ t be a week in Trumpland without a massive cacophony of conspiratorial , lie-fueled Noise .
On Sunday , Trump gave an “ interview ” to Fox News ’ Maria Bartiromo , in which he spun yet more fantasies about machines flipping his votes to Biden , along with a nationwide conspiracy by big-city politicians to defraud him of electoral victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliberately ignoring election fraud claims and again insisted that he had won an election that , in reality , he lost by well over 6 million votes and 74 Electoral College electors .
While Trump was spouting this conspiracist nonsense , Wisconsin was completing its recount—and confirming that Biden had indeed beaten Trump in that state , and by a slightly larger margin than the initial count showed .
This came a couple days after Pennsylvania ’ s Supreme Court shut down the Trump team ’ s efforts to overturn the election result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pulling back , however , Trump ’ s team is now pledging to take the Pennsylvania case to the US Supreme Court , even as it continues to challenge the legality of thousands of votes cast in Wisconsin .
Trump ’ s Fox News charade wasn ’ t really surprising .
Nor was the decision to continue with the lawsuits and other efforts to undermine election results in six key swing states .
But these weekend actions have shown , in full Technicolor derangement , just how far Trump is willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government of , by , and for the people that he has already so badly damaged these past four years .
And , because of that , they show just how vital it is that Trump , in all his malignancy , be prosecuted when he leaves office .
Given how the post-election period has developed , it ’ s not enough to remove this man from power .
His authoritarian presence on the political stage , the cancer that he represents on the American body politic , must be obliterated , leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For he has in this past month declared total war on American democracy .
And in this struggle , there can be no middle ground .
There is a lot of talk of “ healing ” and “ moving on , ” of ignoring Trump ’ s myriad crimes in order to somehow nurture the greater good .
But healing involves , at the very least , acknowledgment of culpability on the part of the guilty—that was , after all , the foundational principle of South Africa ’ s post-apartheid Truth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not admitting any culpability , but his rampage against the legal , political , and cultural pillars of American democracy is actually intensifying as his term in office draws to a close .
Without even a nod to truth , there certainly can be no reconciliation .
Trump ’ s disgraceful , dangerous behavior , from his self-dealing while in government to his last-ditch efforts to subvert the popular will , is cratering trust in American democracy .
For this , he must be made to face a legal reckoning .

Inauguration Day is only seven weeks away. In “normal” times, the outgoing president and his team would at this point be facilitating a smooth transfer of power—tying up a few policy loose ends, but generally making way for the new president and acknowledging the new political priorities of that president.
None of that is happening with Donald Trump. In fact, quite the reverse. Day by day, reports emerge of new efforts to lock into place Trump’s extremist agenda. That’s the Signal.
Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times reported that the administration is ramping up deportations of asylum seekers from Africa and Haiti, in an apparent effort to keep Black people from obtaining residency. The newspaper revealed that in recent weeks more than 100 such men and women have been coerced onto deportation flights, often after being physically assaulted by ICE officers. Many of these individuals have family in the United States, and many had open asylum cases still wending their way through the court system when they were deported. Some of the men were, apparently, put onto the planes with bags over their heads—a brutal image, and one reminiscent of how US forces transported captured Al Qaeda suspects at the height of the War on Terror.
Not content with these egregious rights violations against asylum seekers already in the country, the administration is also dramatically accelerating border wall construction, aiming to lock out undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers alike. Mile upon mile of new wall is going up in these final weeks of Trump’s presidency, at a staggering environmental and financial cost. In some remote canyons in Arizona, the wall is now costing US taxpayers $41 million per mile, and environmental habitats vital to the well-being of numerous animal species are being dynamited and mined into devastation. The aim, apparently, is to present the wall as a fait accompli, thus making it politically impossible for Joe Biden to dismantle it. More Signal:Noise The GOP: Grotesque, Outrageous Putschists Sasha Abramsky The GOP Is in a State of Terminal Decay Sasha Abramsky
Meanwhile, the administration is moving ahead with an extraordinary regulatory change that effectively shreds civil service employment protections for thousands of government employees—including hundreds of Office of Management and Budget workers—who are being reclassified as at-will political appointees, and who can thus be fired by the president if they are not politically loyal. This change is an assault on the professionalized, apolitical civil service, which was put in place in the decades following the Civil War to stamp out rampant corruption. And it kicks in literally the day before the inauguration, so it’s possible that Trump’s final Fuck you not just to Biden but to the American system of governance itself will be a wholesale purge of the civil service in the waning hours of his presidency. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
Internationally, last week saw the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s top nuclear scientist. It was a suitably macabre bookend to a year that began with Washington’s assassination of a top Iranian general, which almost triggered yet another regional war in the Middle East. Now the final weeks of 2020 are likely to be equally tense, thanks to an extrajudicial killing that was likely carried out either by Israeli or US operatives. The effect could well be to ratchet up tensions between Iran and the United States so much that Biden will be boxed in after assuming the presidency, and thus unable to reenter the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a week in Trumpland without a massive cacophony of conspiratorial, lie-fueled Noise. On Sunday, Trump gave an “interview” to Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, in which he spun yet more fantasies about machines flipping his votes to Biden, along with a nationwide conspiracy by big-city politicians to defraud him of electoral victory. He accused the Justice Department of deliberately ignoring election fraud claims and again insisted that he had won an election that, in reality, he lost by well over 6 million votes and 74 Electoral College electors. Current Issue View our current issue
While Trump was spouting this conspiracist nonsense, Wisconsin was completing its recount—and confirming that Biden had indeed beaten Trump in that state, and by a slightly larger margin than the initial count showed. This came a couple days after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court shut down the Trump team’s efforts to overturn the election result in that state as well. Instead of pulling back, however, Trump’s team is now pledging to take the Pennsylvania case to the US Supreme Court, even as it continues to challenge the legality of thousands of votes cast in Wisconsin.
Trump’s Fox News charade wasn’t really surprising. Nor was the decision to continue with the lawsuits and other efforts to undermine election results in six key swing states. But these weekend actions have shown, in full Technicolor derangement, just how far Trump is willing to go to blow up the principle of government of, by, and for the people that he has already so badly damaged these past four years. And, because of that, they show just how vital it is that Trump, in all his malignancy, be prosecuted when he leaves office.
Given how the post-election period has developed, it’s not enough to remove this man from power. His authoritarian presence on the political stage, the cancer that he represents on the American body politic, must be obliterated, leaving absolutely no possibility of a second act. For he has in this past month declared total war on American democracy. And in this struggle, there can be no middle ground.
There is a lot of talk of “healing” and “moving on,” of ignoring Trump’s myriad crimes in order to somehow nurture the greater good. But healing involves, at the very least, acknowledgment of culpability on the part of the guilty—that was, after all, the foundational principle of South Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Trump is not only not admitting any culpability, but his rampage against the legal, political, and cultural pillars of American democracy is actually intensifying as his term in office draws to a close.
Without even a nod to truth, there certainly can be no reconciliation. Trump’s disgraceful, dangerous behavior, from his self-dealing while in government to his last-ditch efforts to subvert the popular will, is cratering trust in American democracy. For this, he must be made to face a legal reckoning.