thenation--2020-07-09--Facebook Fuels Its Users’ Ignorance With Lies

You ’ d have had to be some kind of evil genius to imagine something as terrible for the world as Facebook .
With an estimated 2.6 billion users and $ 70 billion in annual profits , it is the most effective purveyor in history of right-wing hate , lies , and incitement against vulnerable people and the planet .
Is Facebook ’ s malevolence driven by a thirst for profit or politics ?
As with Fox News , alas , that ’ s a false choice , as the two reinforce each other .
Facebook makes its money—as newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But before local news started collapsing , thanks partly to the advertiser exodus to Facebook and Google , newspapers used this model to fulfill their responsibilities to educate readers and hold those in power to account .
Facebook does the opposite : It narrows its users ’ interests and fuels their ignorance with lies and misinformation .
Every so often , Mark Zuckerberg will issue a statement that implies he is sorry and that Facebook will try to do better .
Of course , it never does .
According to a study reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the first 10 months of 2019 , “ politically relevant disinformation was found to have reached over 158 million estimated views , enough to reach every reported registered voter in the US at least once.
” That pace was accelerating , and guess what : “ Most negative misinformation ( 62 % ) was about Democrats or liberals.
” The incitement of violence remains on Facebook and on the company ’ s other apps as well .
Just recently , BuzzFeed News reported that an ad on Instagram , which is owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movies of cops being killed and invited people to “ join the militia , fight the state , ” to a soundtrack of “ We ain ’ t scared of no police / We got guns too.
” This is no accident .
Yaël Eisenstat , Facebook ’ s former head of global elections integrity , explained in The Washington Post that the company “ profits partly by amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare .
Its business model exploits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , show us each a different version of the truth and manipulate us with hyper-customized ads.
” Ask yourself : Why does Facebook refuse to apply its gentle fact-checking apparatus to political advertisements ?
Why does it include the racist , sexist , anti-Semitic Breitbart as one of its “ trusted ” news sources ?
Why does it continue to allow Holocaust deniers onto its site , and why does Zuckerberg choose to define their poison as mere opinion ?
Why did Facebook create a “ newsworthiness ” category in 2016 when dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , racism , and hate speech ?
Why did Zuckerberg tell employees that a possible Elizabeth Warren presidency represented an “ existential ” threat to the company ?
And what will that mean if Joe Biden picks her as his running mate ?
Why in May 2019 did Facebook refuse to take down an obviously doctored video that falsely portrayed Nancy Pelosi as acting like a drunk ?
“ And why , of all things , ” asked Bill McKibben in The New Yorker , “ did the company recently decide to exempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Here ’ s one reason offered by Tim Wu , a professor at Columbia Law School : “ Facebook can , by tinkering with its rules for political ads , give itself a special , unregulated power over elections .
Just that possibility gives Facebook political leverage and politicians reasons to want leverage over Facebook.
” David Thiel , a former Facebook security engineer quoted in the Post , said , “ The value of being in favor with people in power outweighs almost every other concern for Facebook.
” Deploying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans have turned truth on its head by casting themselves as victims of the site ’ s biases .
“ Facebook was always anti-Trump , ” the president has whined , and congressional Republicans and the Department of Justice have threatened legal action to continue this campaign of Orwellian doublespeak .
Facebook ’ s desire to kowtow to Republicans has been evident at least since 2011 , when it hired GOP operative Joel Kaplan as its vice president for global public policy , along with Katie Harbath , a former aide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former Republican-appointed FCC chairman , to support Kaplan ’ s efforts .
Kaplan declined to intervene in Facebook ’ s decision to invite politicians to lie in their paid advertisements .
And he has stood in the way of efforts designed to police misinformation because , according to anonymous sources quoted in the Post , he correctly perceived that it would “ disproportionately affect conservatives.
” Zuckerberg also attended a secret dinner with Trump , Jared Kushner , and the right-wing entrepreneur and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel .
In the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to efforts by the NAACP , Color of Change , and the Anti-Defamation League , we ’ ve seen a Facebook advertising pause by more than 970 companies , including Unilever , Coca-Cola , Pfizer , and Starbucks .
The social sanction is helpful .
It may inspire employees to try to change policy from within , and as Trump sounds more malignant by the day , it also puts pressure on those at the top to protect their reputations from the poison of his presidency .
Still , the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of its income , while small businesses account for more than 70 percent .
And they do not have nearly as many alternatives .
Most people I know , myself included , do not want to quit Facebook , especially during a socially isolating pandemic .
So here ’ s my idea : Let ’ s just boycott the ads .
Don ’ t click on them .
That way , even the small advertisers will have to find new outlets unless Facebook changes its policies .
Spread the word… via Facebook @

This article appears in the July 27/August 3, 2020 issue.
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?
You’d have had to be some kind of evil genius to imagine something as terrible for the world as Facebook. With an estimated 2.6 billion users and $70 billion in annual profits, it is the most effective purveyor in history of right-wing hate, lies, and incitement against vulnerable people and the planet.
Is Facebook’s malevolence driven by a thirst for profit or politics? As with Fox News, alas, that’s a false choice, as the two reinforce each other. Facebook makes its money—as newspapers used to—by selling eyeballs to advertisers. But before local news started collapsing, thanks partly to the advertiser exodus to Facebook and Google, newspapers used this model to fulfill their responsibilities to educate readers and hold those in power to account. Facebook does the opposite: It narrows its users’ interests and fuels their ignorance with lies and misinformation.
Every so often, Mark Zuckerberg will issue a statement that implies he is sorry and that Facebook will try to do better. Of course, it never does. According to a study reported by the watchdog website Popular Information, during the first 10 months of 2019, “politically relevant disinformation was found to have reached over 158 million estimated views, enough to reach every reported registered voter in the US at least once.” That pace was accelerating, and guess what: “Most negative misinformation (62%) was about Democrats or liberals.” The incitement of violence remains on Facebook and on the company’s other apps as well. Just recently, BuzzFeed News reported that an ad on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, showed clips from action movies of cops being killed and invited people to “join the militia, fight the state,” to a soundtrack of “We ain’t scared of no police / We got guns too.”
This is no accident. Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook’s former head of global elections integrity, explained in The Washington Post that the company “profits partly by amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare. Its business model exploits our data to let advertisers custom-target people, show us each a different version of the truth and manipulate us with hyper-customized ads.” 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Ask yourself: Why does Facebook refuse to apply its gentle fact-checking apparatus to political advertisements?
Why does it include the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic Breitbart as one of its “trusted” news sources?
Why does it continue to allow Holocaust deniers onto its site, and why does Zuckerberg choose to define their poison as mere opinion? Current Issue View our current issue
Why did Facebook create a “newsworthiness” category in 2016 when dealing with President Donald Trump’s lies, racism, and hate speech?
Why did Zuckerberg tell employees that a possible Elizabeth Warren presidency represented an “existential” threat to the company? And what will that mean if Joe Biden picks her as his running mate?
Why in May 2019 did Facebook refuse to take down an obviously doctored video that falsely portrayed Nancy Pelosi as acting like a drunk?
“And why, of all things,” asked Bill McKibben in The New Yorker, “did the company recently decide to exempt a climate-denial post from its fact-checking process?”
Here’s one reason offered by Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School: “Facebook can, by tinkering with its rules for political ads, give itself a special, unregulated power over elections. Just that possibility gives Facebook political leverage and politicians reasons to want leverage over Facebook.” David Thiel, a former Facebook security engineer quoted in the Post, said, “The value of being in favor with people in power outweighs almost every other concern for Facebook.”
Deploying their traditional working-the-refs playbook, Trump and the Republicans have turned truth on its head by casting themselves as victims of the site’s biases. “Facebook was always anti-Trump,” the president has whined, and congressional Republicans and the Department of Justice have threatened legal action to continue this campaign of Orwellian doublespeak.
Facebook’s desire to kowtow to Republicans has been evident at least since 2011, when it hired GOP operative Joel Kaplan as its vice president for global public policy, along with Katie Harbath, a former aide to Rudy Giuliani, and Kevin Martin, a former Republican-appointed FCC chairman, to support Kaplan’s efforts. Kaplan declined to intervene in Facebook’s decision to invite politicians to lie in their paid advertisements. And he has stood in the way of efforts designed to police misinformation because, according to anonymous sources quoted in the Post, he correctly perceived that it would “disproportionately affect conservatives.” Zuckerberg also attended a secret dinner with Trump, Jared Kushner, and the right-wing entrepreneur and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel.
In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and thanks to efforts by the NAACP, Color of Change, and the Anti-Defamation League, we’ve seen a Facebook advertising pause by more than 970 companies, including Unilever, Coca-Cola, Pfizer, and Starbucks.
The social sanction is helpful. It may inspire employees to try to change policy from within, and as Trump sounds more malignant by the day, it also puts pressure on those at the top to protect their reputations from the poison of his presidency.
Still, the company’s top 100 advertisers provide only 6 percent of its income, while small businesses account for more than 70 percent. And they do not have nearly as many alternatives. Most people I know, myself included, do not want to quit Facebook, especially during a socially isolating pandemic.
So here’s my idea: Let’s just boycott the ads. Don’t click on them. That way, even the small advertisers will have to find new outlets unless Facebook changes its policies. Spread the word… via Facebook.


thenation--2020-07-09--Today’s SCOTUS Ruling Means Trump’s Criminality Will Be Revealed—Someday

Today , Donald Trump lost his claim of blanket presidential immunity from grand jury or congressional investigations .
In Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA , the president lost , 7-2 , in front of the Supreme Court .
Trump ’ s two handpicked justices , Neil Gorsuch and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh , ruled against him .
President Trump , whose administration is setting some sort of record for losing in court , lost yet again .
At issue in the two cases was whether Trump , through his accountants and bankers , had to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney Cy Vance and the House Judiciary Committee , respectively .
Breathless media coverage aside , these cases were never simply about the public release of those financial documents .
They were never merely about whether Trump could be compelled to release his taxes before the November election , as many hoped .
The critical question before the court was whether the president , by dint of being president , could ignore subpoenas he didn ’ t feel like responding to .
The astounding position asserted by the Trump administration in this case—that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far above the law that he can essentially throw subpoenas from the US Congress or prosecutors into the trash—was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court .
Even though the vote was 7-2 , all nine justices rejected Trump ’ s claim to blanket presidential immunity from legal inquiry .
That said , Trump ’ s legal strategies aren ’ t really designed to win in court ( which is lucky for him , because , again , he keeps losing there ) .
His strategies are designed to “ win ” at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two cases might not prove to be such profound defeats for him after all .
Nothing in the two Supreme Court cases will help people make the political case against Trump in November .
That is disappointing to some .
But the idea that the Supreme Court would rule in a way that would enable everybody to read Trump ’ s tax returns in the press before the election was always unrealistic .
Moreover , Trump isn ’ t done fighting .
As I mentioned after the May 13 oral arguments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to fight a subpoena .
Trump ’ s theory that he could just ignore them instead of legally fighting them was rejected , which means that Trump is now free to do all the things a normal person does to fight a subpoena .
Congratulations , America .
We ’ re now back in a place where Trump has to use ordinary means to obstruct congressional subpoenas , instead of facially illegal means to do so .
That only took 15 months .
In the Trump v. Vance case , that looming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Writing for the majority , Chief Justice John Roberts found that “ a state grand jury subpoena seeking a President ’ s private papers need not satisfy a heightened need standard.
” That means that Trump can make whatever arguments a normal citizen would make to shield his financial documents , and nothing more .
Those arguments can be reviewed by lower courts .
And when Trump loses in front of the lower courts , he will appeal again , perhaps all the way back up to the Supreme Court .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judiciary , because Trump has no good arguments to shield himself from a grand jury subpoena .
The Vance case is over , except for the shouting .
In Trump v. Mazars , Roberts did find a way to heighten the standard of congressional subpoenas when applied to a president .
The standing precedent was that the executive branch had to simply comply with congressional subpoenas , but Roberts invented a new four-factor balancing test for when presidents seek to obstruct congressional oversight .
Roberts ’ s new standard weakens the congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump can now try to make any kind of argument to avoid a congressional subpoena is a limited victory for Trump .
But I ’ m not going to jump up and down on Roberts here for making up something new ( that ’ s something the Federalist Society would do if they were intellectually honest , which they ’ re not ) , because a situation in which a president and Congress can not come to an agreement about which records are necessary for lawmaking is largely unprecedented .
Trump has climbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid these subpoenas , and instead of taking a chainsaw to Trump ’ s perch , as I would do , Roberts has offered Trump a ladder .
Trump is not getting away ; he ’ s just being given a way to come down slowly .
Trump will eventually have to turn over some of his financial documents to Congress ; Roberts created a new way to figure out which ones .
Unfortunately , “ eventually ” will almost certainly come too late for many people .
For them , these cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law ; they were about Trump ’ s efforts to hide from having to disclose financial information until after the election .
There was hope that immediate compliance with Vance ’ s grand jury subpoena would lead to an indictment ( and the public disclosure an indictment entails ) before November .
There was hope that immediate compliance with congressional subpoenas would result in those documents ’ being leaked by Congress before the election .
There was hope that , somehow , the public release of whatever criminality is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would tip the scales in the upcoming election .
That hope was always unrealistic , and , frankly , Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves .
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has spent most of his time in office not looking into Trump Inc. and the Trump family but , rather , looking the other way .
He started the investigations that led to this contested subpoena only last year—and he only did it amid rising political pressure .
He ’ s been the DA since 2009 , and Trump has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once he was pressured to start an investigation , Vance stopped as soon as Trump started the litigation that led to this case .
There is currently no grand jury looking into Trump-related matters .
In his statement after the ruling , Vance claimed that the investigation was delayed by Trump ’ s lawsuit , but there ’ s no reason the subpoena fight should have delayed the entire rest of the investigation .
Trump ’ s taxes should be the final piece of the puzzle , not a threshold issue .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a court to expedite the renewed challenges to the financial subpoenas and be in a position to indict soon .
I doubt that Vance is speedy enough to use the power that the Supreme Court has just affirmed he has before the election .
The congressional subpoenas are even more maddening .
The 116th Congress , in which the Democrats control the House of Representatives , convened on January 3 , 2019 .
House Democrats subpoenaed six years of Trump tax returns on April 3 , 2019 .
That three-month delay might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was likely the difference between getting this case in front of the Supreme Court by October 2019 instead of May 2020 .
If the court had heard the case earlier , it ’ s possible it would have made this same ruling rejecting Trump ’ s claim to blanket immunity by January 2020—before the impeachment trial during which Trump ’ s claim to blanket immunity from congressional subpoenas was his only relevant line of defense to the charge of obstruction of justice .
Just saying .
And while we ’ re here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn has still not come before the Supreme Court for argument ; that subpoena was not issued until April 22 , 2019 .
If the goal of these subpoenas was to force public disclosure of Trump ’ s financial records before the election , Democrats should have fired them out on their first day in power after the midterms .
That ’ s not 20/20 hindsight .
That ’ s putting on your reading glasses and looking at a calendar .
John Roberts Is Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Hammer to the Asylum Process Neil Gorsuch Stuns the Nation , Does the Right Thing Happily , my ultimate wish is for Trump to be held accountable for his crimes—and , from that perspective , the court ’ s rulings are fantastic , assuming prosecutors have the will to continue pursuing Trump after he leaves office .
Trump almost certainly has lied on his financial documents .
Trump fixer Michael Cohen testified to those lies under oath .
Should Trump lose in November , he is still on track to be prosecuted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment he no longer commands the American military .
The immunity from prosecution that I guess we ’ re all pretending he has is not a factor once he ’ s out of office .
The law is coming for Trump , and the Supreme Court affirmed that Trump can not hide forever .
He just has to be defeated in an election first .
The Republican Senate will not remove him from office , despite his crimes .
The Supreme Court will not force him to immediately comply with subpoenas before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are going to have to vote against him and all of his Senate enablers .
And given the coronavirus and the Supreme Court ’ s unwillingness to embrace absentee voting , people are going to have to risk their lives to vote against him .
Voting is the only way we have left to influence the election .
And if we do the right thing in November , Trump will find that his political strategy of delay is not a legal strategy for escape .
Nobody is coming to save us from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save Trump from justice if he loses .

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?
Today, Donald Trump lost his claim of blanket presidential immunity from grand jury or congressional investigations. In Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, the president lost, 7-2, in front of the Supreme Court. Trump’s two handpicked justices, Neil Gorsuch and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, ruled against him. President Trump, whose administration is setting some sort of record for losing in court, lost yet again.
At issue in the two cases was whether Trump, through his accountants and bankers, had to turn over financial documents subpoenaed by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively.
Breathless media coverage aside, these cases were never simply about the public release of those financial documents. They were never merely about whether Trump could be compelled to release his taxes before the November election, as many hoped. The critical question before the court was whether the president, by dint of being president, could ignore subpoenas he didn’t feel like responding to. The astounding position asserted by the Trump administration in this case—that the president of the United States is so far above the law that he can essentially throw subpoenas from the US Congress or prosecutors into the trash—was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. Even though the vote was 7-2, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim to blanket presidential immunity from legal inquiry.
That said, Trump’s legal strategies aren’t really designed to win in court (which is lucky for him, because, again, he keeps losing there). His strategies are designed to “win” at politics. And in this respect, the two cases might not prove to be such profound defeats for him after all. Nothing in the two Supreme Court cases will help people make the political case against Trump in November. That is disappointing to some. But the idea that the Supreme Court would rule in a way that would enable everybody to read Trump’s tax returns in the press before the election was always unrealistic.
Moreover, Trump isn’t done fighting. As I mentioned after the May 13 oral arguments for these cases, there are many legal ways to fight a subpoena. Trump’s theory that he could just ignore them instead of legally fighting them was rejected, which means that Trump is now free to do all the things a normal person does to fight a subpoena. Congratulations, America. We’re now back in a place where Trump has to use ordinary means to obstruct congressional subpoenas, instead of facially illegal means to do so. That only took 15 months.
In the Trump v. Vance case, that looming fight seems bound to be largely perfunctory. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts found that “a state grand jury subpoena seeking a President’s private papers need not satisfy a heightened need standard.” That means that Trump can make whatever arguments a normal citizen would make to shield his financial documents, and nothing more. Those arguments can be reviewed by lower courts. And when Trump loses in front of the lower courts, he will appeal again, perhaps all the way back up to the Supreme Court. But Trump will likely lose up and down the judiciary, because Trump has no good arguments to shield himself from a grand jury subpoena. The Vance case is over, except for the shouting. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
In Trump v. Mazars, Roberts did find a way to heighten the standard of congressional subpoenas when applied to a president. The standing precedent was that the executive branch had to simply comply with congressional subpoenas, but Roberts invented a new four-factor balancing test for when presidents seek to obstruct congressional oversight. Current Issue View our current issue
Roberts’s new standard weakens the congressional ability to check the president. That Trump can now try to make any kind of argument to avoid a congressional subpoena is a limited victory for Trump. But I’m not going to jump up and down on Roberts here for making up something new (that’s something the Federalist Society would do if they were intellectually honest, which they’re not), because a situation in which a president and Congress cannot come to an agreement about which records are necessary for lawmaking is largely unprecedented. Trump has climbed all the way up a tree to avoid these subpoenas, and instead of taking a chainsaw to Trump’s perch, as I would do, Roberts has offered Trump a ladder. Trump is not getting away; he’s just being given a way to come down slowly.
Trump will eventually have to turn over some of his financial documents to Congress; Roberts created a new way to figure out which ones. Unfortunately, “eventually” will almost certainly come too late for many people. For them, these cases were not about the simple application of the rule of law; they were about Trump’s efforts to hide from having to disclose financial information until after the election. There was hope that immediate compliance with Vance’s grand jury subpoena would lead to an indictment (and the public disclosure an indictment entails) before November. There was hope that immediate compliance with congressional subpoenas would result in those documents’ being leaked by Congress before the election. There was hope that, somehow, the public release of whatever criminality is likely buried in Trump’s financial documents would tip the scales in the upcoming election.
That hope was always unrealistic, and, frankly, Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has spent most of his time in office not looking into Trump Inc. and the Trump family but, rather, looking the other way. He started the investigations that led to this contested subpoena only last year—and he only did it amid rising political pressure. He’s been the DA since 2009, and Trump has been a fraud his whole life.
Even once he was pressured to start an investigation, Vance stopped as soon as Trump started the litigation that led to this case. There is currently no grand jury looking into Trump-related matters. In his statement after the ruling, Vance claimed that the investigation was delayed by Trump’s lawsuit, but there’s no reason the subpoena fight should have delayed the entire rest of the investigation. Trump’s taxes should be the final piece of the puzzle, not a threshold issue. A hard-charging DA might have been able to get a court to expedite the renewed challenges to the financial subpoenas and be in a position to indict soon. I doubt that Vance is speedy enough to use the power that the Supreme Court has just affirmed he has before the election.
The congressional subpoenas are even more maddening. The 116th Congress, in which the Democrats control the House of Representatives, convened on January 3, 2019. House Democrats subpoenaed six years of Trump tax returns on April 3, 2019. That three-month delay might not seem like much, but it was likely the difference between getting this case in front of the Supreme Court by October 2019 instead of May 2020. If the court had heard the case earlier, it’s possible it would have made this same ruling rejecting Trump’s claim to blanket immunity by January 2020—before the impeachment trial during which Trump’s claim to blanket immunity from congressional subpoenas was his only relevant line of defense to the charge of obstruction of justice. Just saying.
And while we’re here, I’ll point out that the House subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn has still not come before the Supreme Court for argument; that subpoena was not issued until April 22, 2019.
If the goal of these subpoenas was to force public disclosure of Trump’s financial records before the election, Democrats should have fired them out on their first day in power after the midterms. That’s not 20/20 hindsight. That’s putting on your reading glasses and looking at a calendar. More from Mystal John Roberts Is Not Your Friend Elie Mystal The Supreme Court Just Took a Hammer to the Asylum Process Elie Mystal Neil Gorsuch Stuns the Nation, Does the Right Thing Elie Mystal
Happily, my ultimate wish is for Trump to be held accountable for his crimes—and, from that perspective, the court’s rulings are fantastic, assuming prosecutors have the will to continue pursuing Trump after he leaves office. Trump almost certainly has lied on his financial documents. Trump fixer Michael Cohen testified to those lies under oath. Should Trump lose in November, he is still on track to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law the moment he no longer commands the American military. The immunity from prosecution that I guess we’re all pretending he has is not a factor once he’s out of office. The law is coming for Trump, and the Supreme Court affirmed that Trump cannot hide forever.
He just has to be defeated in an election first. The Republican Senate will not remove him from office, despite his crimes. The Supreme Court will not force him to immediately comply with subpoenas before the election. To remove Trump, people are going to have to vote against him and all of his Senate enablers. And given the coronavirus and the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to embrace absentee voting, people are going to have to risk their lives to vote against him.
Voting is the only way we have left to influence the election. And if we do the right thing in November, Trump will find that his political strategy of delay is not a legal strategy for escape.
Nobody is coming to save us from Trump before the election—but nobody will come to save Trump from justice if he loses.


Milton Glaser, 1929–2020

Milton Glaser , the world-famous graphic designer and longtime friend of The Nation , died last week at the age of 91 .
As The New York Times noted in its obituary , he was someone who “ changed the vocabulary of American visual culture ” over the course of his storied career.1 Luckily for me , when I became editor of The Nation in 1978 , I lived on West 67th Street in Manhattan , right down the block from Milton , and we knew and liked each other .
And luckily for The Nation , as Milton told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a talk titled “ Ten Things I Have Learned , ” his first rule was “ You can only work for people you like.
” 2 We invited Milton to redesign the magazine so that every issue had some articles beginning on the cover .
As he and Walter Bernard , his longtime design partner , recalled in their book Mag Men : Fifty Years of Making Magazines , they “ wanted to give The Nation a more distinctive visual identity… Back then , the magazine had little money and no art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple type template that editors could manage without the help of a graphic designer .
We restored the period at the end of the logo and created icons for the regular columns.
” 3 Richard Lingeman , then The Nation ’ s executive editor , recalls a typical experience working with Milton : “ We ran a story on Iran ( under the shah ) about the secret police torture-murders of a number of dissidents .
Somehow we had [ obtained ] pictures of the corpses of the tortured men .
We decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to design a spread .
We went to his atelier , and he looked at them without blinking an eye and did his layout , coolly and efficiently , without any comment.
” 4 Katrina vanden Heuvel , The Nation ’ s editorial director , called Glaser “ a great friend of The Nation , always generous with his time and ideas .
He believed in The Nation ’ s mission and values .
Milton and Walter Bernard created compelling covers for many of our important stories and special issues and gave valuable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Milton loved political buttons , and after 9/11 and the launch of the Iraq War , he made several for The Nation : ‘ He lied , they died ’ ( sadly reusable today ) and ‘ Dissent is patriotic.
’ His heart always seemed as big as the one he designed for his beloved ‘ I NY ’ logo .
I will miss Milton.
” 5 As Lingeman says , “ Milton was a pro , a brilliant designer , and a master of his profession.
” He was also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than we can say.6

This article appears in the July 27/August 3, 2020 issue.
Milton Glaser, the world-famous graphic designer and longtime friend of The Nation, died last week at the age of 91. As The New York Times noted in its obituary, he was someone who “changed the vocabulary of American visual culture” over the course of his storied career.1
Luckily for me, when I became editor of The Nation in 1978, I lived on West 67th Street in Manhattan, right down the block from Milton, and we knew and liked each other. And luckily for The Nation, as Milton told an audience in London many years later in a talk titled “Ten Things I Have Learned,” his first rule was “You can only work for people you like.”2
We invited Milton to redesign the magazine so that every issue had some articles beginning on the cover. As he and Walter Bernard, his longtime design partner, recalled in their book Mag Men: Fifty Years of Making Magazines, they “wanted to give The Nation a more distinctive visual identity… Back then, the magazine had little money and no art department. We designed a tight but simple type template that editors could manage without the help of a graphic designer. We restored the period at the end of the logo and created icons for the regular columns.”3
Richard Lingeman, then The Nation’s executive editor, recalls a typical experience working with Milton: “We ran a story on Iran (under the shah) about the secret police torture-murders of a number of dissidents. Somehow we had [obtained] pictures of the corpses of the tortured men. We decided to run those pictures and asked Milton to design a spread. We went to his atelier, and he looked at them without blinking an eye and did his layout, coolly and efficiently, without any comment.”4
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation’s editorial director, called Glaser “a great friend of The Nation, always generous with his time and ideas. He believed in The Nation’s mission and values. Milton and Walter Bernard created compelling covers for many of our important stories and special issues and gave valuable creative input on our 150th anniversary issue. Milton loved political buttons, and after 9/11 and the launch of the Iraq War, he made several for The Nation: ‘He lied, they died’ (sadly reusable today) and ‘Dissent is patriotic.’ His heart always seemed as big as the one he designed for his beloved ‘I NY’ logo. I will miss Milton.”5
As Lingeman says, “Milton was a pro, a brilliant designer, and a master of his profession.” He was also a nice guy, and we miss him more than we can say.6


thenation--2020-07-10--For Some Students, ICE’s Visa Announcement Is Life or Death

For some international students , the recent ruling by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) on international student visas is , at best , a major inconvenience .
However , for Syrian students like Ralph Estanboulieh and Abdullah Bannan , who are currently enrolled as undergraduate students at Harvard College , the ruling could be life or death .
ICE ’ s announcement states that international students must take in-person classes to remain in the United States with an F1 student visa .
For those at universities adopting online-only classes , international students will be forced to transfer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instruction during the pandemic , depart the country , or face potential deportation—in some cases , to war zones .
In March 2020 , in response to the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic , the Trump administration made exceptions to F1 visa regulations for the spring and summer , allowing international students to temporarily take more online classes than usually are permitted .
But this week , ICE announced a reversal of that temporary exception .
In response , Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have sued the Trump administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraining order that would put the ICE policy on hold for 14 days , and eventually permanently block the order from taking effect .
This policy change could not have come at a worse time for international students on F1 visas .
Universities are grappling with whether and how to reopen in the fall as Covid-19 cases continue to rise across the United States .
Hours before the ICE policy was released , Harvard University stated that it would be operating at 40 percent capacity , with sophomores , juniors , and seniors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The university has suggested that seniors will be given priority in returning to campus for the spring semester .
For many low-income international students who attend universities on full scholarships , the flights to return home alone would be economically catastrophic for their families , particularly as countries like Syria face hyperinflation—principally due to Covid-19 , a new round of US sanctions , and uncertainty in Lebanon—causing a spike in exchange rates .
Furthermore , traveling at a time when Covid-19 cases are increasing in the United States is dangerous both for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which don ’ t have the testing capacities to track and contain exposure .
But for Syrians and others from countries under US sanctions , including Cuba , Iran , and Sudan , the circumstances are even worse .
In adherence to federal policy that bans the exchange of goods and services with sanctioned countries , many universities will not allow students based in these countries to participate in online learning , a technicality that makes this policy all the more devastating for some Syrians .
For male students from Syria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could mean not only never returning to school but also being drafted into the Syrian military .
Many male Syrian students who are in the United States with an F1 visa rely on their college enrollment to avoid compulsory military service .
As soon as they return to Syria and lose their full-time student status , they will be required by law to enlist .
Abdullah Bannan , a sophomore at Harvard University , reflected , “ It ’ s extremely devastating for us to have overcome all these obstacles , against all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced with such an impossible decision , especially when our life is hanging in the balance.
” “ The mere potential of facing the ‘ initiation of removal proceedings ’ is an overwhelmingly terrifying experience , especially when my home is war-torn .
Because of this policy , my education , future , and even life are at stake.
” added Ralph Estanboulieh , a senior at Harvard .
The decisions made by US universities , the Trump administration , and federal courts in the coming weeks could mean life or death for @ @ @ @ @ @ @

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?
For some international students, the recent ruling by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on international student visas is, at best, a major inconvenience. However, for Syrian students like Ralph Estanboulieh and Abdullah Bannan, who are currently enrolled as undergraduate students at Harvard College, the ruling could be life or death.
ICE’s announcement states that international students must take in-person classes to remain in the United States with an F1 student visa. For those at universities adopting online-only classes, international students will be forced to transfer to other schools that continue providing in-person instruction during the pandemic, depart the country, or face potential deportation—in some cases, to war zones.
In March 2020, in response to the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic, the Trump administration made exceptions to F1 visa regulations for the spring and summer, allowing international students to temporarily take more online classes than usually are permitted. But this week, ICE announced a reversal of that temporary exception.
In response, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have sued the Trump administration, asking federal courts to implement a temporary restraining order that would put the ICE policy on hold for 14 days, and eventually permanently block the order from taking effect.
This policy change could not have come at a worse time for international students on F1 visas. Universities are grappling with whether and how to reopen in the fall as Covid-19 cases continue to rise across the United States. Hours before the ICE policy was released, Harvard University stated that it would be operating at 40 percent capacity, with sophomores, juniors, and seniors taking online classes for the fall semester. The university has suggested that seniors will be given priority in returning to campus for the spring semester.
For many low-income international students who attend universities on full scholarships, the flights to return home alone would be economically catastrophic for their families, particularly as countries like Syria face hyperinflation—principally due to Covid-19, a new round of US sanctions, and uncertainty in Lebanon—causing a spike in exchange rates. Furthermore, traveling at a time when Covid-19 cases are increasing in the United States is dangerous both for students and their home communities, most of which don’t have the testing capacities to track and contain exposure.
But for Syrians and others from countries under US sanctions, including Cuba, Iran, and Sudan, the circumstances are even worse. In adherence to federal policy that bans the exchange of goods and services with sanctioned countries, many universities will not allow students based in these countries to participate in online learning, a technicality that makes this policy all the more devastating for some Syrians. Current Issue View our current issue
For male students from Syria, returning home and losing their student status could mean not only never returning to school but also being drafted into the Syrian military.
Many male Syrian students who are in the United States with an F1 visa rely on their college enrollment to avoid compulsory military service. As soon as they return to Syria and lose their full-time student status, they will be required by law to enlist.
Abdullah Bannan, a sophomore at Harvard University, reflected, “It’s extremely devastating for us to have overcome all these obstacles, against all odds and sacrifices, just to be faced with such an impossible decision, especially when our life is hanging in the balance.”
“The mere potential of facing the ‘initiation of removal proceedings’ is an overwhelmingly terrifying experience, especially when my home is war-torn. Because of this policy, my education, future, and even life are at stake.” added Ralph Estanboulieh, a senior at Harvard.
The decisions made by US universities, the Trump administration, and federal courts in the coming weeks could mean life or death for Syrian students forced to return home.


thenation--2020-07-10--The Coronavirus Pushes State Budgets to the Brink

The coronavirus crisis has pushed state and local governments to the edge of a budget cliff ; some have already started their tumble into the abyss .
State tax revenue dropped by almost 50 percent in April compared to a year earlier as businesses shuttered and people delayed paying taxes .
Meanwhile , these governments are spending vastly more to meet residents ’ increased health and economic needs .
The hole left by a loss in revenue coupled with higher spending is going to be very , very deep .
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 615 billion shortfall over this fiscal year and the next .
The most difficult year will be 2021 , as states face a $ 315 billion deficit .
That ’ s worse than in 2010 , the height of the Great Recession , when states had to grapple with a $ 230 billion loss .
Given what happened during the last downturn , we can predict what is going to take place .
In the wake of the Great Recession , many states pulled back sharply on spending , leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was trying to recover .
States are legally required to balance their budget every year , so they will have to compensate for coronavirus-related expenses somehow .
Most will turn to devastating cuts , and those cuts will fall the hardest on those who have been on the front lines of the crisis .
Nurses and doctors fighting the pandemic have received nightly applause across the country and thanks on TV .
But as their states retrench to deal with the fiscal crisis , they ’ ll get pink slips and benefit cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments spent $ 294 billion on health and hospitals , or 10 percent of all spending .
It ’ s the fourth-largest category of spending , after elementary and higher education and public welfare .
Fire departments make up a smaller portion of state and local budgets .
But they ’ ll still be on the chopping block , which means the paramedics who have been responding to Covid-19 cases will get hit , too .
Meanwhile , states spent a combined $ 660 billion on schools in 2017 , or more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding pays for public school teachers who have scrambled to keep their students connected and educated as the pandemic pushed us all into our homes .
If schools reopen in September , it will be with even higher costs for extra nurses to ensure students are healthy , support staff for those who fell behind , and equipment needed to comply with new health protocols .
The job losses are already piling up .
State and local governments have fired or furloughed nearly 1.5 million people since February .
That ’ s nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Great Recession .
The loss of revenue from elective procedures has been hammering hospital budgets , leading 266 facilities to furlough or lay off thousands of employees .
As of early May , fire departments had laid off 935 people , including emergency medical technicians and paramedics , and a survey by the International Association of Fire Chiefs projected 30,000 jobs lost this year and next .
Chiefs have been asked to propose budget cuts of 10 to 25 percent for their departments , often including emergency medical services .
Teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education jobs—most of which are filled by educators who have had to put in extra work to reconfigure the way they teach—have fallen by almost 670,000 since February .
The nearly 450,000 lost in April alone were more than those lost over the entire Great Recession .
So far , the aid that Congress has sent to states pales in comparison with the need .
The Treasury Department has said that $ 110 billion in relief funding can ’ t be used to make up state revenue shortfalls , which means all they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 65 billion .
In March , Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell praised frontline health care workers , EMTs , and teachers as “ American heroes.
” But a month later , he opposed giving federal aid to states , calling it a bailout for those with large pension obligations .
The need has nothing to do with poor financial planning , and it ’ s a problem afflicting red and blue states alike .
Without help from Congress , the very people who have uprooted and sometimes risked their lives to care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the hardest hit .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
This article appears in the July 27/August 3, 2020 issue.
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?
The coronavirus crisis has pushed state and local governments to the edge of a budget cliff; some have already started their tumble into the abyss. State tax revenue dropped by almost 50 percent in April compared to a year earlier as businesses shuttered and people delayed paying taxes. Meanwhile, these governments are spending vastly more to meet residents’ increased health and economic needs.
The hole left by a loss in revenue coupled with higher spending is going to be very, very deep. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects that the recession caused by the pandemic will create a $615 billion shortfall over this fiscal year and the next. The most difficult year will be 2021, as states face a $315 billion deficit. That’s worse than in 2010, the height of the Great Recession, when states had to grapple with a $230 billion loss.
Given what happened during the last downturn, we can predict what is going to take place. In the wake of the Great Recession, many states pulled back sharply on spending, leading to public sector layoffs just as the economy was trying to recover. States are legally required to balance their budget every year, so they will have to compensate for coronavirus-related expenses somehow. Most will turn to devastating cuts, and those cuts will fall the hardest on those who have been on the front lines of the crisis.
Nurses and doctors fighting the pandemic have received nightly applause across the country and thanks on TV. But as their states retrench to deal with the fiscal crisis, they’ll get pink slips and benefit cuts. In 2017, state and local governments spent $294 billion on health and hospitals, or 10 percent of all spending. It’s the fourth-largest category of spending, after elementary and higher education and public welfare.
Fire departments make up a smaller portion of state and local budgets. But they’ll still be on the chopping block, which means the paramedics who have been responding to Covid-19 cases will get hit, too.
Meanwhile, states spent a combined $660 billion on schools in 2017, or more than a fifth of their budgets. This funding pays for public school teachers who have scrambled to keep their students connected and educated as the pandemic pushed us all into our homes. If schools reopen in September, it will be with even higher costs for extra nurses to ensure students are healthy, support staff for those who fell behind, and equipment needed to comply with new health protocols.
The job losses are already piling up. State and local governments have fired or furloughed nearly 1.5 million people since February. That’s nearly twice as many as during the entirety of the Great Recession. Current Issue View our current issue
The loss of revenue from elective procedures has been hammering hospital budgets, leading 266 facilities to furlough or lay off thousands of employees. As of early May, fire departments had laid off 935 people, including emergency medical technicians and paramedics, and a survey by the International Association of Fire Chiefs projected 30,000 jobs lost this year and next. Chiefs have been asked to propose budget cuts of 10 to 25 percent for their departments, often including emergency medical services.
Teachers are feeling the deepest pain. Local education jobs—most of which are filled by educators who have had to put in extra work to reconfigure the way they teach—have fallen by almost 670,000 since February. The nearly 450,000 lost in April alone were more than those lost over the entire Great Recession.
So far, the aid that Congress has sent to states pales in comparison with the need. The Treasury Department has said that $110 billion in relief funding can’t be used to make up state revenue shortfalls, which means all they’ve gotten for that purpose is $65 billion.
In March, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell praised frontline health care workers, EMTs, and teachers as “American heroes.” But a month later, he opposed giving federal aid to states, calling it a bailout for those with large pension obligations. The need has nothing to do with poor financial planning, and it’s a problem afflicting red and blue states alike. Without help from Congress, the very people who have uprooted and sometimes risked their lives to care for and support the rest of us will be the hardest hit.


thenation--2020-07-10--I Was at the Tulsa Rally With Anti-Trump Vets. The President Should Be Worried.

It was June 20 and we anti-war vets had traveled all the way to Tulsa , Okla. , in the midst of a pandemic to protest President Trump ’ s latest folly , an election 2020 rally where he was to parade his goods and pretend all was well with this country .
We never planned to go inside the cavernous arena where that rally was to be held .
I was part of our impromptu reconnaissance team that called an audible at the last moment .
We suddenly decided to infiltrate not just the perimeter of that Tulsa rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant I got a long , close look at the MAGA crowd there in what turned out to be a more than half-empty arena .
Our boots-on-the-ground coalition of two national anti-war veteran organizations—About Face and Veterans for Peace ( VFP ) —had thrown together a rather risky direct action event in coordination with the local activists who invited us .
We planned to climb the three main flagpoles around that center and replace an Old Glory , an Oklahoma state flag , and a Tulsa one with Black Lives–themed banners .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stymied by an 11th-hour change in the security picture : new gates and unexpected police deployments .
Hopping metal barriers and penetrating a sizable line of cops and National Guardsmen seemed to ensure a fruitless trip to jail , so into the under-attended indoor rally we went , to—successfully , it turned out—find a backdoor route to those flagpoles .
Once inside , we had time to kill .
While others in the group infiltrated and the flagpole climbers donned their gear , five of us—three white male ex–foot soldiers in America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ( one a vet herself ) —took a breather in the largely empty upper deck of the rally .
Nervous joking then ensued about the absurdity of wearing the Trump “ camouflage ” that had eased our entrance .
My favorite disguise : a Hispanic ex-Marine buddy ’ s red-white-and-blue “ BBQ , Beer , Freedom ” tank top .
The music irked me instantly .
Much to the concern of the rest of the team , I ’ d brought a notebook along and was already furtively scribbling .
At one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson ’ s “ Billie Jean , ” The Beatles ’ “ Let It Be , ” and Queen ’ s “ We Are the Champions ” over the arena ’ s loudspeakers .
I couldn ’ t help but wonder how that Black man of , let ’ s say , complicated sexual orientation , four outspoken British hippies , and a gay AIDs victim ( Freddie Mercury ) would feel about the way the Trump campaign had co-opted their songs .
We can guess though , since the late Tom Petty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his rock song “ I Won ’ t Back Down ” at the rally .
I watched an older white woman in a “ Joe Biden Sucks , Nancy Pelosi Swallows ” T-shirt gleefully dancing to Michael Jackson ’ s falsetto ( “ But the kid is not my son !
” ) .
Given that “ Billie Jean ” blatantly describes an out-of-wedlock paternity battle and that odds were this woman was a pro-life proponent of “ family values , ” there was something obscene about her carefree shimmy .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the version of patriotism on display in the arena .
I ’ ve never seen so many representations of the Stars and Stripes in my life , classic flags everywhere and flag designs plastered on all manner of attire .
Remember , I went to West Point .
No one showed the slightest concern that many of the red-white-and-blue adaptations worn or waved strictly violated the statutes colloquially known as the US Flag Code ( United States Code , Title 4 , Chapter 1 ) .
That said , going undercover in Trumplandia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s exceedingly clear that one political faction holds the flag hostage .
They see it as theirs—and only theirs .
They define its meaning , its symbolism , and its proper use , not to speak of whom it represents .
The crowd , after all , was vanilla .
( There were more people of color serving beers than cheering the president . )
By a rough estimate , half of the attendees had some version of the flag on their clothing , Trump banners , or other accessories , signaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing space with Old Glory were images of ( often military-grade ) weaponry , skulls ( one wearing an orange toupee ) , and anti-liberal slogans .
Notable shirts included : the old Texas War of Independence challenge “ Come and Take It !
” above the sort of AK-47 assault rifle long favored by America ’ s enemies ; a riff on a classic Nixonian line , “ The Silent Majority Is Coming ” ; and the slanderous “ Go To Your Safe Space , Snowflake !
” ; not to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Alex Jones Did Nothing Wrong ” ( with a small flag design on it , too ) .
The banners were even more aggressive .
“ Trump 2020 : Fuck Your Feelings ” was a fan favorite .
Another popular one photoshopped The Donald ’ s puffy face onto Sylvester Stallone ’ s muscle-bound physique , a machine gun at his hip .
That image , of course , had been lifted from the Reagan-era , pro–Vietnam War film Rambo : First Blood Part II , a fitting accompaniment to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make America Great Again.
” Finally , a black banner with pink lettering read “ LGBT.
” Above the letters , also in pink , were logos depicting , respectively , the Statue of Liberty , a gun ( an M16 assault rifle ) , a beer mug , and a profile bust of Donald Trump .
Get it ?
For our small group of multi-war/multi-tour combat veterans , it was hard not to wonder whether many of these flag-and-weaponry enthusiasts had ever seen a shot fired in anger or sported Old Glory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were all wearing standard black veteran ball-caps and overtly Trump-friendly shirts , several of us interlopers feared the crowd might somehow guess what we actually were .
Yet , tellingly , the closest we came to outing ourselves—before later pulling off our disguises to expose black “ About Face : Veterans Against The War ” shirts—was during the national anthem .
Nothing better exemplified the contrast between what I ’ ve come to think of as the “ pageantry patriotism ” of the crowd and the more complex “ participatory patriotism ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At its first notes—we were still waiting in the arena ’ s encircling lobby—our whole team reflexively stood at attention , removed our hats , faced the nearest draped flags , and placed our hands upon our hearts .
We were the only ones who did so—until , at mid-anthem , a few embarrassed passersby followed our example .
Most of the folks , however , just continued to scamper along , often chomping on soft pretzels , and sometimes casting quizzical glances at us .
Trumpian patriotism only goes so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather diverse , but mostly such vets groups remain disproportionately white and male .
In fact , one reason local black and native communities undoubtedly requested our attendance was a vague ( and not unreasonable ) assumption that maleness , whiteness , and veteran ’ s status might offer their protests some semblance of protection .
Nevertheless , my old boss on West Point ’ s faculty , retired Colonel Gregory Daddis , summed up the limits of such protection in this phrase : “ Patriotic ” Veterans Only , Please .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violently apparent the moment we “ unmasked ” at the base of those flagpoles .
Approximately three dozen combat tours braved between us surely didn ’ t save our nonviolent team from the instant , distinctly physical rancor of the police—or four members of our group from arrest as the climbers shimmied those flagpoles .
Nor did deliberately visible veteran ’ s gear offer any salvation from the instantly jeering crowd , as the rest of us were being escorted to the nearest exit and tossed out .
“ Antifa !
” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s face .
Truthfully , America ’ s “ thanks for your service ” hyper-adulation culture has never been more than the thinnest of veneers .
However much we veterans reputedly fought for “ our freedom , ” that freedom and the respect for the First Amendment rights of anti-war , anti-Trump vets that should go with it evaporates with remarkable speed in such situations .
Three Strands of Veteran or Military Dissent Still , the intensity of the MAGA crowd ’ s vitriol—as suggested by the recent hate mail both About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a suspicion that Team Trump is losing the military ’ s loyalty .
In fact , there ’ s evidence that something is indeed astir in both the soldier and veteran communities the likes of which this country hasn ’ t seen since thetail endof the Vietnam War , almost half a century ago .
Today ’ s rising doubt and opposition has three main components : retired senior officers , younger combat veterans , and—most disturbingly for national-security elites—rank-and-file serving soldiers and National Guardsmen .
The first crew , those senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only media attention , even though they may , in the end , prove the least important of the three .
Many of the 89 former defense officials who expressed “ alarm ” in a Washington Post op-ed over the president ’ s response to the nationwide George Floyd protests , as well as other retired senior military officers who decried President Trump ’ s martial threats at the time , had widespread name recognition .
They included former Secretary of Defense and retired Marine Corps General Jim ( “ Mad Dog ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell .
And yes , it ’ s remarkable that such a who ’ s-who of former military leaders has spoken as if with one voice against Trump ’ s abhorrent and inflammatory recent behavior .
Still , a little caution is in order before canonizing a crew that , lest we forget , has neither won nor opposed a generation ’ s worth of unethical wars that shouldn ’ t have been fought .
Recall , for example , that Saint Mattis resigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s complicity in the borderline genocide underway in Yemen or pointlessly escalatory drone strikes in Somalia , but in response to a mere presidential suggestion of pulling US troops out of the quicksand of the Syrian conflict .
In fact , for all their chatter about the Constitution , oaths betrayed , and citizen rights violated , anti-Trumpism ultimately glues this star-studded crew together .
If Joe Biden ever takes the helm , expect these former flag officers to go mute on this country ’ s forever wars waged in Baghdad and Baltimore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recent wave of defiance from normally conservative low- to mid-level combat veterans , most , though not all , a generation junior to the attention-grabbing ex-Pentagon brass and suits .
There were early signs of a shift among those post-9/11 boots-on-the-ground types .
In the last year , credible polls showed that two-thirds of veterans believed the wars in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria “ were not worth fighting , ” and 73 percent supported full withdrawal from the Afghan War in particular .
Notably , such rates of anti-war sentiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which there may be no precedent .
Furthermore , just before the president ’ s controversial West Point graduation speech , more than 1,000 military academy alumni signed an open letter addressed to the matriculating class and blatantly critical of Trump ’ s urge to militarily crack down on the Black Lives Matter protests .
Mainly ex-captains and colonels who spanned graduating classes from 1948 to 2019 , they briefly grabbed mainstream headlines with their missive .
Robin Wright of The New Yorker even interviewed and quoted a few outspoken signatories ( myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful visual statement of Marine Corps veteran Todd Winn , twice wounded in Iraq , who stood for hours outside the Utah state capitol in the sweltering heat in full dress uniform with the message “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” taped over his mouth .
At the left end of the veterans ’ community , the traditional heart of anti-war military dissent , the ranks of the organizations I belong to and with whom I “ deployed ” to Tulsa have also swelled .
Both in that joint operation and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely Vietnam alumni ) and About Face decision to launch a “ Stand Down for Black Lives ” campaign—encouraging and supporting serving soldiers and guardsmen to refuse mobilization orders—the two groups have taken real steps toward encouraging multigenerational opposition to systemic militarism .
In fact , more than 700 vets publicly signed their names ( as I did ) to About Face ’ s provocative open letter urging just such a refusal .
There were even ex–service members among the far greater mass of unaffiliated veterans who joined protesters in the streets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in significant numbers during that month or more of demonstrations .
Which brings us to the final ( most fear-inducing ) strand of such dissent : those in the serving military itself .
Their numbers are , of course , impossible to measure , since such resistance can range from the passive to the overt and the Pentagon is loathe to publicize the slightest hint of its existence .
However , About Face quickly received scores of calls from concerned soldiers and Guardsmen , while VFP reported the first mobilization refusals almost immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members are known to have taken “ concrete steps ” to avoid deployment to the protests and , according to a New York magazine investigation , some troops were “ reconsidering their service , ” or “ ready to quit.
” Finally , there ’ s my own correspondence .
Over the years , I ’ ve received notes from distraught service members with some regularity .
However , in the month-plus since George Floyd ’ s death , I ’ ve gotten nearly 100 such messages from serving strangers—as well as from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is , than in the preceding four years .
Last month , one of those former cadets of mine became the first West Point graduate in the last 15 years to be granted conscientious objector status .
He will complete his service obligation as a noncombatant in the Medical Service Corps .
Within 36 hours of that news spreading , a handful of other former students expressed interest in his case and wondered if I could put them in touch with him .
In a moment of crankiness this January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kansas campus , I decried the pathetic student turnout at a post–Qasem Soleimani assassination rally against a possible war with Iran .
And it still remains an open question whether the array of activist groups that About Face and Veterans for Peace have so recently stood in solidarity with will show up for our future anti-war endeavors .
Still , the growth across generations of today ’ s anti-war veterans ’ movement has , I suspect , value in itself—and part of that value lies in our recognition that the problem of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the combat zones of this country ’ s forever wars .
By standing up for Black lives , pitching tents at Standing Rock Reservation to fight a community-threatening pipeline , and similar solidarity actions , this generation of anti-war veterans is beginning to set itself apart in its opposition to America ’ s wars abroad and at home .
As both the Covid-19 crisis and the militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear , the imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home , and the two couldn ’ t be more intimately linked .
Our struggle is , at least in part , over who gets to define patriotism .
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising , it will invariably crash against the pageantry patriots of Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we ’ ll all face a new and critical theater in this nation ’ s culture wars .
I don ’ t pretend to know whether such protests will last or military dissent will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I do know is what my favorite rock star , Bruce Springsteen , used to repeat before live renditions of his song “ Born to Run ” : Remember , in the end nobody wins , unless everybody wins .

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?
It was June 20 and we anti-war vets had traveled all the way to Tulsa, Okla., in the midst of a pandemic to protest President Trump’s latest folly, an election 2020 rally where he was to parade his goods and pretend all was well with this country.
We never planned to go inside the cavernous arena where that rally was to be held. I was part of our impromptu reconnaissance team that called an audible at the last moment. We suddenly decided to infiltrate not just the perimeter of that Tulsa rally but the BOK Center itself. That meant I got a long, close look at the MAGA crowd there in what turned out to be a more than half-empty arena.
Our boots-on-the-ground coalition of two national anti-war veteran organizations—About Face and Veterans for Peace (VFP)—had thrown together a rather risky direct action event in coordination with the local activists who invited us.
We planned to climb the three main flagpoles around that center and replace an Old Glory, an Oklahoma state flag, and a Tulsa one with Black Lives–themed banners. On arrival, though, we found ourselves stymied by an 11th-hour change in the security picture: new gates and unexpected police deployments. Hopping metal barriers and penetrating a sizable line of cops and National Guardsmen seemed to ensure a fruitless trip to jail, so into the under-attended indoor rally we went, to—successfully, it turned out—find a backdoor route to those flagpoles.
Once inside, we had time to kill. While others in the group infiltrated and the flagpole climbers donned their gear, five of us—three white male ex–foot soldiers in America’s forever wars and two Native American women (one a vet herself)—took a breather in the largely empty upper deck of the rally. Nervous joking then ensued about the absurdity of wearing the Trump “camouflage” that had eased our entrance. My favorite disguise: a Hispanic ex-Marine buddy’s red-white-and-blue “BBQ, Beer, Freedom” tank top.
The music irked me instantly. Much to the concern of the rest of the team, I’d brought a notebook along and was already furtively scribbling. At one point, we listened sequentially to Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” The Beatles’ “Let It Be,” and Queen’s “We Are the Champions” over the arena’s loudspeakers. I couldn’t help but wonder how those artists would feel about the way the Trump campaign had co-opted their songs. We can guess though, since the late Tom Petty’s family quickly denounced the use of his rock song “I Won’t Back Down” at the rally. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
I watched an older white woman in a “Joe Biden Sucks, Nancy Pelosi Swallows” T-shirt gleefully dancing to Michael Jackson’s falsetto (“But the kid is not my son!”). Given that “Billie Jean” blatantly describes an out-of-wedlock paternity battle and that odds were this woman was a pro-life proponent of “family values,” there was something obscene about her carefree shimmy. Current Issue View our current issue
A Contrast in Patriotism
And then, of course, there was the version of patriotism on display in the arena. I’ve never seen so many representations of the Stars and Stripes in my life, classic flags everywhere and flag designs plastered on all manner of attire. Remember, I went to West Point. No one showed the slightest concern that many of the red-white-and-blue adaptations worn or waved strictly violated the statutes colloquially known as the US Flag Code (United States Code, Title 4, Chapter 1).
That said, going undercover in Trumplandia means entering a universe in which it’s exceedingly clear that one political faction holds the flag hostage. They see it as theirs—and only theirs. They define its meaning, its symbolism, and its proper use, not to speak of whom it represents. The crowd, after all, was vanilla. (There were more people of color serving beers than cheering the president.)
By a rough estimate, half of the attendees had some version of the flag on their clothing, Trump banners, or other accessories, signaling more than mere national pride. Frequently sharing space with Old Glory were images of (often military-grade) weaponry, skulls (one wearing an orange toupee), and anti-liberal slogans. Notable shirts included: the old Texas War of Independence challenge “Come and Take It!” above the sort of AK-47 assault rifle long favored by America’s enemies; a riff on a classic Nixonian line, “The Silent Majority Is Coming”; and the slanderous “Go To Your Safe Space, Snowflake!”; not to mention a sprinkling of the purely conspiratorial like “Alex Jones Did Nothing Wrong” (with a small flag design on it, too).
The banners were even more aggressive. “Trump 2020: Fuck Your Feelings” was a fan favorite. Another popular one photoshopped The Donald’s puffy face onto Sylvester Stallone’s muscle-bound physique, a machine gun at his hip. That image, of course, had been lifted from the Reagan-era, pro–Vietnam War film Rambo: First Blood Part II, a fitting accompaniment to Trump’s classically plagiarized Reaganesque rallying cry “Make America Great Again.” Finally, a black banner with pink lettering read “LGBT.” Above the letters, also in pink, were logos depicting, respectively, the Statue of Liberty, a gun (an M16 assault rifle), a beer mug, and a profile bust of Donald Trump. Get it?
For our small group of multi-war/multi-tour combat veterans, it was hard not to wonder whether many of these flag-and-weaponry enthusiasts had ever seen a shot fired in anger or sported Old Glory on a right-shoulder uniform sleeve. Though we were all wearing standard black veteran ball-caps and overtly Trump-friendly shirts, several of us interlopers feared the crowd might somehow guess what we actually were. Yet, tellingly, the closest we came to outing ourselves—before later pulling off our disguises to expose black “About Face: Veterans Against The War” shirts—was during the national anthem.
Nothing better exemplified the contrast between what I’ve come to think of as the “pageantry patriotism” of the crowd and the more complex “participatory patriotism” of the dissenting vets than that moment. At its first notes—we were still waiting in the arena’s encircling lobby—our whole team reflexively stood at attention, removed our hats, faced the nearest draped flags, and placed our hands upon our hearts. We were the only ones who did so—until, at mid-anthem, a few embarrassed passersby followed our example. Most of the folks, however, just continued to scamper along, often chomping on soft pretzels, and sometimes casting quizzical glances at us. Trumpian patriotism only goes so far.
Our crew was, in fact, rather diverse, but mostly such vets groups remain disproportionately white and male. In fact, one reason local black and native communities undoubtedly requested our attendance was a vague (and not unreasonable) assumption that maleness, whiteness, and veteran’s status might offer their protests some semblance of protection. Nevertheless, my old boss on West Point’s faculty, retired Colonel Gregory Daddis, summed up the limits of such protection in this phrase: “Patriotic” Veterans Only, Please. And just how accurate that was became violently apparent the moment we “unmasked” at the base of those flagpoles.
Approximately three dozen combat tours braved between us surely didn’t save our nonviolent team from the instant, distinctly physical rancor of the police—or four members of our group from arrest as the climbers shimmied those flagpoles. Nor did deliberately visible veteran’s gear offer any salvation from the instantly jeering crowd, as the rest of us were being escorted to the nearest exit and tossed out. “Antifa!” one man yelled directly into a Marine vet’s face. Truthfully, America’s “thanks for your service” hyper-adulation culture has never been more than the thinnest of veneers. However much we veterans reputedly fought for “our freedom,” that freedom and the respect for the First Amendment rights of anti-war, anti-Trump vets that should go with it evaporates with remarkable speed in such situations.
Three Strands of Veteran or Military Dissent
Still, the intensity of the MAGA crowd’s vitriol—as suggested by the recent hate mail both About Face and I have received—is partly driven by a suspicion that Team Trump is losing the military’s loyalty. In fact, there’s evidence that something is indeed astir in both the soldier and veteran communities the likes of which this country hasn’t seen since thetail endof the Vietnam War, almost half a century ago. Today’s rising doubt and opposition has three main components: retired senior officers, younger combat veterans, and—most disturbingly for national-security elites—rank-and-file serving soldiers and National Guardsmen.
The first crew, those senior officers, have received just about the only media attention, even though they may, in the end, prove the least important of the three. Many of the 89 former defense officials who expressed “alarm” in a Washington Post op-ed over the president’s response to the nationwide George Floyd protests, as well as other retired senior military officers who decried President Trump’s martial threats at the time, had widespread name recognition. They included former Secretary of Defense and retired Marine Corps General Jim (“Mad Dog”) Mattis and that perennial latecomer, former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell. And yes, it’s remarkable that such a who’s-who of former military leaders has spoken as if with one voice against Trump’s abhorrent and inflammatory recent behavior.
Still, a little caution is in order before canonizing a crew that, lest we forget, has neither won nor opposed a generation’s worth of unethical wars that shouldn’t have been fought. Recall, for example, that Saint Mattis resigned his post not over his department’s complicity in the borderline genocide underway in Yemen or pointlessly escalatory drone strikes in Somalia, but in response to a mere presidential suggestion of pulling US troops out of the quicksand of the Syrian conflict.
In fact, for all their chatter about the Constitution, oaths betrayed, and citizen rights violated, anti-Trumpism ultimately glues this star-studded crew together. If Joe Biden ever takes the helm, expect these former flag officers to go mute on this country’s forever wars waged in Baghdad and Baltimore alike.
More significant and unique is the recent wave of defiance from normally conservative low- to mid-level combat veterans, most, though not all, a generation junior to the attention-grabbing ex-Pentagon brass and suits. There were early signs of a shift among those post-9/11 boots-on-the-ground types. In the last year, credible polls showed that two-thirds of veterans believed the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria “were not worth fighting,” and 73 percent supported full withdrawal from the Afghan War in particular. Notably, such rates of anti-war sentiment exceed those of civilians, something for which there may be no precedent.
Furthermore, just before the president’s controversial West Point graduation speech, more than 1,000 military academy alumni signed an open letter addressed to the matriculating class and blatantly critical of Trump’s urge to militarily crack down on the Black Lives Matter protests. Mainly ex-captains and colonels who spanned graduating classes from 1948 to 2019, they briefly grabbed mainstream headlines with their missive. Robin Wright of The New Yorker even interviewed and quoted a few outspoken signatories (myself included). Then there was the powerful visual statement of Marine Corps veteran Todd Winn, twice wounded in Iraq, who stood for hours outside the Utah state capitol in the sweltering heat in full dress uniform with the message “I Can’t Breathe” taped over his mouth.
At the left end of the veterans’ community, the traditional heart of anti-war military dissent, the ranks of the organizations I belong to and with whom I “deployed” to Tulsa have also swelled. Both in that joint operation and in the recent joint Veterans for Peace (largely Vietnam alumni) and About Face decision to launch a “Stand Down for Black Lives” campaign—encouraging and supporting serving soldiers and guardsmen to refuse mobilization orders—the two groups have taken real steps toward encouraging multigenerational opposition to systemic militarism. In fact, more than 700 vets publicly signed their names (as I did) to About Face’s provocative open letter urging just such a refusal. There were even ex–service members among the far greater mass of unaffiliated veterans who joined protesters in the streets of this country’s cities and towns in significant numbers during that month or more of demonstrations.
Which brings us to the final (most fear-inducing) strand of such dissent: those in the serving military itself. Their numbers are, of course, impossible to measure, since such resistance can range from the passive to the overt and the Pentagon is loathe to publicize the slightest hint of its existence. However, About Face quickly received scores of calls from concerned soldiers and Guardsmen, while VFP reported the first mobilization refusals almost immediately. At a minimum, 10 service members are known to have taken “concrete steps” to avoid deployment to the protests and, according to a New York magazine investigation, some troops were “reconsidering their service,” or “ready to quit.”
Finally, there’s my own correspondence. Over the years, I’ve received notes from distraught service members with some regularity. However, in the month-plus since George Floyd’s death, I’ve gotten nearly 100 such messages from serving strangers—as well as from several former West Point students turned lieutenants—more, that is, than in the preceding four years. Last month, one of those former cadets of mine became the first West Point graduate in the last 15 years to be granted conscientious objector status. He will complete his service obligation as a noncombatant in the Medical Service Corps. Within 36 hours of that news spreading, a handful of other former students expressed interest in his case and wondered if I could put them in touch with him.
Intersectional Vets
In a moment of crankiness this January, using a bullhorn pointed at the University of Kansas campus, I decried the pathetic student turnout at a post–Qasem Soleimani assassination rally against a possible war with Iran. And it still remains an open question whether the array of activist groups that About Face and Veterans for Peace have so recently stood in solidarity with will show up for our future anti-war endeavors.
Still, the growth across generations of today’s anti-war veterans’ movement has, I suspect, value in itself—and part of that value lies in our recognition that the problem of American militarism isn’t restricted to the combat zones of this country’s forever wars. By standing up for Black lives, pitching tents at Standing Rock Reservation to fight a community-threatening pipeline, and similar solidarity actions, this generation of anti-war veterans is beginning to set itself apart in its opposition to America’s wars abroad and at home.
As both the Covid-19 crisis and the militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling against at home, and the two couldn’t be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash against the pageantry patriots of Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we’ll all face a new and critical theater in this nation’s culture wars. I don’t pretend to know whether such protests will last or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before live renditions of his song “Born to Run”: Remember, in the end nobody wins, unless everybody wins.
This article has been updated.