dailykos--2020-01-25--The Economist's Hour - A Review

The Economist's Hour - A Review

Binyamin Appelbaum , The Economist ’ s Hour : False Prophets , Free Markets , and The Fracture of Society , ( Boston : Little , Brown and Company , 2019 ) , 332 pages , $ 30.00 Economics education in the United States walks a fine line between education and indoctrination .
Applied economics in the United States walks a fine line between economic policy and religious faith .
Author Binyamin Appelbaum understands this well .
In his 2019 book the he writes a lively , clearly written narrative of the post WWII economist ideologues , their rise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trail of devastation .
Appelbaum defines the economist ’ s hour in the introduction as the period 1969-2008 .
Before 1969 economists struggled to be heard and economics remained the dismal science where scarce resources limit choices and opportunities .
In the post WWII economists campaigned to make free markets the best way to bring annual economic growth and benefits to all .
The book narrates the economist ’ s rise to power with brief biographies of economists and their pitch for growth and happiness via free markets , which in combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Readers should be advised Milton Friedman ’ s name appears first on page six of the introduction and in every chapter and the conclusion after that .
The book has 332 pages divided into ten chapters between the introduction and a conclusion .
The first chapter tells the story of the campaign to end the draft and convert the army to “ volunteers ” recruited by offers of pay and benefits .
Here Milton Friedman leads the way in a political campaign to make troops just like hires in the private sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biography of Friedman , one of the longest of many more to come .
Chapters two , three and four can be called the macroeconomics chapters .
Chapter two entitled Friedman v. Keynes follows the debate between monetary and fiscal policy , also known as the AM-FM debates , after economists Ando and Modigliani on the fiscal side and Friedman and Meiselman on the monetary side .
The ideologue Friedman insisted the money supply set to grow at a predetermined rate should be the one and only policy .
Keynes died in 1945 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Theory of Employment , Interest and Money lives on .
The General Theory is not a general theory at all but a book of special cases .
For decades Keyne ’ s colleagues in the economics profession counseled , wait , because they insisted an economy self corrects ; prices and interest rates will fall , generating an increase in spending and production , and so depressions end automatically .
Free market ideologues believe an economic system works like Newtonian physics .
In 1936 after 5 years of worldwide depression Keynes filled his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be self-correcting , where the spending needed to restore production and employment might not recover .
He was so bold as to suggest the government could help by putting funds in the spending stream to restore the economy .
Since then Republicans and free enterprisers have hated Keynes as readers will find in chapter two .
Chapter three and four continue the macro debates by following the key economic advisers through the presidents of 1969 to 2008 .
Chapter three follows the “ stagflation ” debate with Nixon and Arthur Burns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Alan Greenspan era .
Chapter four covers the demand free enterprisers make for lower taxes and less government spending and their conviction these will be an aid to economic growth .
Chapters five , six and seven cover domestic microeconomics issues and policies .
Appelbaum describes the ideologues opposition to Antitrust law , market regulation in the airline and truck transportation industries , safety and environmental regulation and their preferred arguments against them .
Chapters eight , nine and ten shift to international economic issues .
Chapter eight , the longest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death of the gold exchange standard established in the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement and the ideologues view that nothing should be done to influence international exchange rates after the end of the fixed exchange rate era .
Chapter nine covers the ideologues advance into the economies of Chile and Taiwan .
I learned that during the 1960 ’ s a third of the graduate students in economics at the University of Chicago came from Chile ; they were known there as the Chicago boys .
They campaigned for the free market policies they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There was stout resistance at first , but with a few visits from Friedman and several colleagues the ideologues got their way , although not with the happiest results for Chile .
Chapter Ten makes a review of the people and financial concoctions of the 1990 ’ s that brought the 2008 financial meltdown and two year recession .
Those entrusted to manage the nations financial assets used their protected political status and new concoctions to gamble with the nations loanable funds .
They lost the gamble , but not to worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there to bail them out .
It was all supported by free market ideologues like Alan Greenspan and approved by the ever helpful Bill Clinton .
It turns out Republicans and their corporate allies support all of the free market arguments of the free market ideologues .
Milton Friedman and some of his confreres made themselves into unpaid corporate spokesmen by effectively advocating growth while ignoring the troubles it generates , especially the inequality .
Generations of economics students in the United States read Milton Friedman ’ s “ Essay in Positive Economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be an empirical science where hypotheses about free markets should be proved .
While “ Uncle Milton ” as we graduate students of the 1960 ’ s used to call him , made a good salesman he marched along from theory to policy without the empirical proof , a still common practice , especially in microeconomics .
In each of the chapters Appelbaum names the players , often with some biography , narrates the arguments , the disagreements and the consequences when the ideologues prevail , as they inevitably did after 1969 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives a history of the use and abuse for cost-benefit analysis for health and safety regulations .
In 1967 actress Jayne Mansfield and two others were killed when their car slid under a truck stopped in a fog of pesticide .
The Johnson administration proposed a regulation to require installing a safety bar to prevent future accidents .
After stalling for years President Ford killed the regulation because it would only save 180 lives a year they valued at $ 200,000 a life .
The benefit of lives saved did not justify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times the benefits .
True blue free enterprisers cite the workings of the market place as the best safety protection .
Milton Friedman was adamant the health department does not need to regulate health standards in restaurants : “ the quality of restaurants was assured by the availability of other restaurants ” i.e .
the competition .
When the coast guard found 90 percent of Bayley “ survival suits ” were defective the ideologues at the FTC blocked recall and correction : “ If deaths actually occur market forces – such as lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remedy the problem.
” When Carter Administration economists Charles Schultze and William Nordhaus demanded to scrap “ brown lung ” air quality regulations in the textile industry Senator Edmund Muskie objected “ that it was undemocratic for economists to substitute their own tallies of costs and benefits.
” Senator Muskie saw the problem exactly , corporate America and their economist spokesmen do not care about democracy ; it can interfere with markets and hurts profits .
Since the benefits of regulations go to individuals and the larger society , corporate America objects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The use and abuse of benefit cost analysis lets them disguise their aims in a haze of economist ’ s easily manipulated cost-benefit justifications .
The chapters report many failures of free markets , which Appelbaum pulls together in a seventeen page conclusion .
He suggests the broader consequences of all these failures on the economy : growing inequality of income and wealth , the dismal job prospects for the powerless working class and the threat to public civility and democratic institutions .
Here he reminds readers that markets function from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a political process .
They do not come down from heaven .
The book avoids economic jargon and while it will be of special interest to economists it can be read by a much broader audience .
There are 88 pages of footnotes , which give references but also include some long background discussions his editor may have convinced him to take out of the text .
The more engaged reader should take a look .
Appelbaum tells readers in the introduction his father was born in 1951 while he was born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his father ’ s age and went to graduate school in the 1960 ’ s and finished a doctorate in economics in the 1970 ’ s .
Finally , I say , the younger generation has assembled a thoughtful and readable attack on doctrinaire economics .
It ’ s about time .

Binyamin Appelbaum, The Economist’s Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and The Fracture of Society , (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2019), 332 pages, $30.00
Economics education in the United States walks a fine line between education and indoctrination. Applied economics in the United States walks a fine line between economic policy and religious faith. Author Binyamin Appelbaum understands this well. In his 2019 book the Economists’ Hour he writes a lively, clearly written narrative of the post WWII economist ideologues, their rise to influence, their one and only policy and trail of devastation.
Appelbaum defines the economist’s hour in the introduction as the period 1969-2008. Before 1969 economists struggled to be heard and economics remained the dismal science where scarce resources limit choices and opportunities. In the post WWII economists campaigned to make free markets the best way to bring annual economic growth and benefits to all. The book narrates the economist’s rise to power with brief biographies of economists and their pitch for growth and happiness via free markets, which in combination Appelbaum calls a biography of a revolution. Readers should be advised Milton Friedman’s name appears first on page six of the introduction and in every chapter and the conclusion after that.
The book has 332 pages divided into ten chapters between the introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter tells the story of the campaign to end the draft and convert the army to “volunteers” recruited by offers of pay and benefits. Here Milton Friedman leads the way in a political campaign to make troops just like hires in the private sector. This chapter includes a four page biography of Friedman, one of the longest of many more to come.
Chapters two, three and four can be called the macroeconomics chapters. Chapter two entitled Friedman v. Keynes follows the debate between monetary and fiscal policy, also known as the AM-FM debates, after economists Ando and Modigliani on the fiscal side and Friedman and Meiselman on the monetary side. The ideologue Friedman insisted the money supply set to grow at a predetermined rate should be the one and only policy. Keynes died in 1945, but his famous book the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lives on. The General Theory is not a general theory at all but a book of special cases. For decades Keyne’s colleagues in the economics profession counseled, wait, because they insisted an economy self corrects; prices and interest rates will fall, generating an increase in spending and production, and so depressions end automatically. Free market ideologues believe an economic system works like Newtonian physics.
In 1936 after 5 years of worldwide depression Keynes filled his book with examples where an economy might not be self-correcting, where the spending needed to restore production and employment might not recover. He was so bold as to suggest the government could help by putting funds in the spending stream to restore the economy. Since then Republicans and free enterprisers have hated Keynes as readers will find in chapter two.
Chapter three and four continue the macro debates by following the key economic advisers through the presidents of 1969 to 2008. Chapter three follows the “stagflation” debate with Nixon and Arthur Burns, Jimmy Carter and Paul Volker and on to the Alan Greenspan era. Chapter four covers the demand free enterprisers make for lower taxes and less government spending and their conviction these will be an aid to economic growth.
Chapters five, six and seven cover domestic microeconomics issues and policies. Appelbaum describes the ideologues opposition to Antitrust law, market regulation in the airline and truck transportation industries, safety and environmental regulation and their preferred arguments against them.
Chapters eight, nine and ten shift to international economic issues. Chapter eight, the longest chapter in the book, recounts the death of the gold exchange standard established in the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement and the ideologues view that nothing should be done to influence international exchange rates after the end of the fixed exchange rate era.
Chapter nine covers the ideologues advance into the economies of Chile and Taiwan. I learned that during the 1960’s a third of the graduate students in economics at the University of Chicago came from Chile; they were known there as the Chicago boys. They campaigned for the free market policies they absorbed under the tutelage of Milton Friedman. There was stout resistance at first, but with a few visits from Friedman and several colleagues the ideologues got their way, although not with the happiest results for Chile.
Chapter Ten makes a review of the people and financial concoctions of the 1990’s that brought the 2008 financial meltdown and two year recession. Those entrusted to manage the nations financial assets used their protected political status and new concoctions to gamble with the nations loanable funds. They lost the gamble, but not to worry “W” and the Republicans were there to bail them out. It was all supported by free market ideologues like Alan Greenspan and approved by the ever helpful Bill Clinton.
It turns out Republicans and their corporate allies support all of the free market arguments of the free market ideologues. Milton Friedman and some of his confreres made themselves into unpaid corporate spokesmen by effectively advocating growth while ignoring the troubles it generates, especially the inequality. Generations of economics students in the United States read Milton Friedman’s “Essay in Positive Economics” that explains so well how economics should be an empirical science where hypotheses about free markets should be proved. While “Uncle Milton” as we graduate students of the 1960’s used to call him, made a good salesman he marched along from theory to policy without the empirical proof, a still common practice, especially in microeconomics.
In each of the chapters Appelbaum names the players, often with some biography, narrates the arguments, the disagreements and the consequences when the ideologues prevail, as they inevitably did after 1969. As an example, chapter 7 gives a history of the use and abuse for cost-benefit analysis for health and safety regulations. In 1967 actress Jayne Mansfield and two others were killed when their car slid under a truck stopped in a fog of pesticide. The Johnson administration proposed a regulation to require installing a safety bar to prevent future accidents. After stalling for years President Ford killed the regulation because it would only save 180 lives a year they valued at $200,000 a life. The benefit of lives saved did not justify the cost of installation, estimated at four times the benefits.
True blue free enterprisers cite the workings of the market place as the best safety protection. Milton Friedman was adamant the health department does not need to regulate health standards in restaurants: “the quality of restaurants was assured by the availability of other restaurants” i.e. the competition. When the coast guard found 90 percent of Bayley “survival suits” were defective the ideologues at the FTC blocked recall and correction: “If deaths actually occur market forces – such as lawsuits by surviving heirs – may be adequate to remedy the problem.”
When Carter Administration economists Charles Schultze and William Nordhaus demanded to scrap “brown lung” air quality regulations in the textile industry Senator Edmund Muskie objected “that it was undemocratic for economists to substitute their own tallies of costs and benefits.”
Senator Muskie saw the problem exactly, corporate America and their economist spokesmen do not care about democracy; it can interfere with markets and hurts profits. Since the benefits of regulations go to individuals and the larger society, corporate America objects to any costs they incur from regulations. The use and abuse of benefit cost analysis lets them disguise their aims in a haze of economist’s easily manipulated cost-benefit justifications.
The chapters report many failures of free markets, which Appelbaum pulls together in a seventeen page conclusion. He suggests the broader consequences of all these failures on the economy: growing inequality of income and wealth, the dismal job prospects for the powerless working class and the threat to public civility and democratic institutions. Here he reminds readers that markets function from the constructs of property and contract rights determined in a political process. They do not come down from heaven.
The book avoids economic jargon and while it will be of special interest to economists it can be read by a much broader audience. There are 88 pages of footnotes, which give references but also include some long background discussions his editor may have convinced him to take out of the text. The more engaged reader should take a look.
Appelbaum tells readers in the introduction his father was born in 1951 while he was born in 1978. I am closer to his father’s age and went to graduate school in the 1960’s and finished a doctorate in economics in the 1970’s. Finally, I say, the younger generation has assembled a thoughtful and readable attack on doctrinaire economics. It’s about time.


dailykos--2020-01-25--It’s Looking Like There Will Be Zero Republican Votes For More Evidence

It ’ s important to keep it real here .
There will likely be zero Republican defections to hear more evidence , no additional documents or witnesses .
I thought going in to today ’ s proceedings there may be one , possibly two , but as I watched the Republican presentation this morning I realized the folly of that notion .
There will be no displays of moral courage this coming week .
Last night apparently Schiff gave Susan Collins a case of the vapors with his “ head on a pike ” statement .
Fox agents of outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage , twisting it in to him denigrating the courage of the troops .
I anticipated that when he said it , even though he fully explained the analogy .
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has signaled her displeasure multiple times .
Former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill has been the one that I have been paying the most attention to for hints in to the prospect of some of her former colleagues crossing over on the vote to continue the trial in effort to get more information .
In reading both her demeanor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is she doesn ’ t seem to believe that it will happen .
She knows the Senate very well and is often the most pragmatic pundit whenever interviewed .
Corey Gardner and Susan Collins will lose even more support if they vote for additional evidence .
At least they have the support of the conservative base in their states , if they defect , they will lose even that .
Romney is not likely to stand alone in a lost cause .
Add to this that these Senators are not used to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their phones for eight hours a day .
Based on reporting , it ’ s driving them absolutely mad .
There is no way they are going sit through weeks of testimony from other witnesses .
So where does this leave us ?
I think the House Managers probably knocked 2-3 points off of Trump ’ s job approval numbers and that ’ s no small thing .
Evidence will continue to surface that will not be helpful to his candidacy .
Eventually the truth will be fully revealed and these Senators will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I predict Collins and Gardner will not survive this and be replaced in the Senate .
Fox News will welcome them in to the fold .
Donald Trump will lose the 2020 election .
We can take heart in that at least .

It’s important to keep it real here. There will likely be zero Republican defections to hear more evidence, no additional documents or witnesses. I thought going in to today’s proceedings there may be one, possibly two, but as I watched the Republican presentation this morning I realized the folly of that notion. There will be no displays of moral courage this coming week.
Last night apparently Schiff gave Susan Collins a case of the vapors with his “head on a pike” statement. Fox agents of outrage were stunned by his reference to moral courage, twisting it in to him denigrating the courage of the troops. I anticipated that when he said it, even though he fully explained the analogy. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has signaled her displeasure multiple times.
Former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill has been the one that I have been paying the most attention to for hints in to the prospect of some of her former colleagues crossing over on the vote to continue the trial in effort to get more information. In reading both her demeanor and comments around this topic, my take is she doesn’t seem to believe that it will happen. She knows the Senate very well and is often the most pragmatic pundit whenever interviewed.
Corey Gardner and Susan Collins will lose even more support if they vote for additional evidence. At least they have the support of the conservative base in their states, if they defect, they will lose even that. Romney is not likely to stand alone in a lost cause.
Add to this that these Senators are not used to being cooped up on the Senate floor without their phones for eight hours a day. Based on reporting, it’s driving them absolutely mad. There is no way they are going sit through weeks of testimony from other witnesses.
So where does this leave us? I think the House Managers probably knocked 2-3 points off of Trump’s job approval numbers and that’s no small thing. Evidence will continue to surface that will not be helpful to his candidacy. Eventually the truth will be fully revealed and these Senators will have that as part of their legacy. I predict Collins and Gardner will not survive this and be replaced in the Senate. Fox News will welcome them in to the fold. Donald Trump will lose the 2020 election. We can take heart in that at least.


dailykos--2020-01-26--Republican Senator John Barrasso gives perfect evidence of Republicans’ bad faith

the significance of the new Here is Senator Barrasso last nightthe significance of the new bombshell video of Trump meeting @ @ @ @ @ removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine ( Marie Yovanovitch ) : '' There will @ @ @ @ @ .
There will be something new that comes out every day . ''
To some @ @ @ @ @ s appropriate and poetic that many Republican senators are not even trying to hide their @ @ @ @ @ again for senators like John Barrasso deserve our equal contempt .
And the rest of @ @ @ @ @ we are up against .
Also , note in his first quote above that he @ @ @ @ @ argument as “ six hours of .
” This is another deliberate lie by a @ @ @ @ @ deeply complicit in hiding actual evidence .
So now you know the next false argument @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve already had days of testimony.
” Senator Barrasso , you are dishonest @ @ @

This is perfect. Here is Republican Senator John Barrasso on January 22nd, dismissing the House Managers’ case and opposing the call for taking additional evidence:
and I didn’t hear anything new,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters early We’ve just come out listening to, what, six hours of testimony,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters early Wednesday evening . “It still seems to me that this was an effort by the Democrats, in a very partisan way, to bring a case against President Trump because they didn’t like the outcome of the 2016 election.”
dismissing the significance of the new Here is Senator Barrasso last nightthe significance of the new bombshell video of Trump meeting with Parnas and ordering the removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine (Marie Yovanovitch):
"There will be new evidence every day. There will be something new that comes out every day."
To some extent I think it’s appropriate and poetic that many Republican senators are not even trying to hide their own corruption. Whoever votes again for senators like John Barrasso deserve our equal contempt. And the rest of us should clearly know what we are up against.
Also, note in his first quote above that he refers to the lawyers’ argument as “six hours of testimony .” This is another deliberate lie by a senator who wants to be deeply complicit in hiding actual evidence. So now you know the next false argument: “By now, we’ve already had days of testimony.”
Senator Barrasso, you are dishonest and dishonorable.


dailykos--2020-01-26--This Week In The War On Women:
News Items and links for Jan. 25th, 2020:

`` The Trump administration filed a brief in these cases last week , asking the Court to dramatically curtail reproductive choice .
Much of that brief asks the Court to effectively ignore its decision in Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) , which struck down an abortion restriction that is virtually identical to the one at issue in the June Medical cases .
But the brief also offers a subtle and arcane argument involving the question of who is allowed to bring a lawsuit challenging laws restricting abortion .
Should this argument prevail — and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal to conservative justices who want to quietly roll back abortion rights while avoiding a political backlash — it would fundamentally alter the landscape of abortion rights .
Its immediate effect would likely be to shut down suits challenging anti-abortion laws before those laws take effect ( often , a new state law does not take effect until weeks or months after it is enacted ) . ''
`` States gear up for abortion fights with eye on Supreme Court '' : https : //thehill.com/ ... '' State legislators across the country are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crack down on or expand access to abortion services as supporters and opponents plot a growing legal battle that is likely to end at the Supreme Court . ''
`` Police in Delhi have faced criticism for failing to arrest any members of a violent mob that stormed the campus of the Jawarharlal Nehru University ( JNU ) in the Indian capital , while at the same time charging a student leader beaten over the head with a metal bar with two offences ''

.
"The Trump administration’s subtle, devious plan to dismantle abortion rights": https://www.vox.com/...
"The Trump administration filed a brief in these cases last week, asking the Court to dramatically curtail reproductive choice. Much of that brief asks the Court to effectively ignore its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which struck down an abortion restriction that is virtually identical to the one at issue in the June Medical cases. But the brief also offers a subtle and arcane argument involving the question of who is allowed to bring a lawsuit challenging laws restricting abortion.
Should this argument prevail — and there’s a good chance it will appeal to conservative justices who want to quietly roll back abortion rights while avoiding a political backlash — it would fundamentally alter the landscape of abortion rights. Its immediate effect would likely be to shut down suits challenging anti-abortion laws before those laws take effect (often, a new state law does not take effect until weeks or months after it is enacted)."
"States gear up for abortion fights with eye on Supreme Court": https://thehill.com/...
"State legislators across the country are preparing a new round of measures to crack down on or expand access to abortion services as supporters and opponents plot a growing legal battle that is likely to end at the Supreme Court."
"India campus attack: police fail to make arrests but charge injured student
"Police in Delhi have faced criticism for failing to arrest any members of a violent mob
that stormed the campus of the Jawarharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the Indian capital, while at the same time charging a student leader beaten over the head with a metal bar with two offences"
.www.theguardian.com/...


dailykos--2020-01-27--Bolton News Just Tossed A Steaming Bag of Dog Poop On To The Senate Floor

Clean up on Senate isle one .
I wrote a Saturday that there was no chance for witnesses .
I now have to retract that claim with the introduction of this stink bomb that just blew up the main argument made Saturday by the Trump defense team who vehemently pressed that there was no direct evidence that the President had used his office to investigate his political rivals .
Of course there was , there always was .
They knew it , the Senate knew it the majority of the American people knew it .
Now there will be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Bolton that in fact the President withheld aid to investigate the Bidens .
Bolton ’ s revelation is now in the public domain and not subject to claims of executive privilege .
His testimony will likely implicate others who also have direct knowledge .
( If we don ’ t see William Barr and Mike Pompeo being called in this trial .
They will surely be sitting in a public hearing one day ) .
Any witnesses that are named are now relieved to testify since executive privilege can not be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts is going to have to earn his keep here as he will surely be called on to rule in this matter .
He ’ s not going to go down in history as complicit in this “ drug deal ” .
This means that the defense must pivot to try to make the Bidens the story .
They have no other recourse but to to try to put them on trial .
If they press for Joe Biden ’ s testimony , that is going to be a major tactical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully explain the history of Ukraine ’ s fight for independence and its strategic importance to America ’ s interest .
The votes and the complicit acts of Senators in that room who agreed to withhold aid in order to remove a corrupt prosecutor will further expose their hypocrisy .
Should he be called , Biden ’ s son Hunter will have nothing to offer the proceedings relevant to the facts in the case .
It will be transparent as to the intention of Republicans to allow a vote to pass for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no win situation for Senate Republicans and they deserve every bit of it .

Clean up on Senate isle one. I wrote a Saturday that there was no chance for witnesses. I now have to retract that claim with the introduction of this stink bomb that just blew up the main argument made Saturday by the Trump defense team who vehemently pressed that there was no direct evidence that the President had used his office to investigate his political rivals. Of course there was, there always was. They knew it, the Senate knew it the majority of the American people knew it.
Now there will be the direct first hand testimony from at least John Bolton that in fact the President withheld aid to investigate the Bidens. Bolton’s revelation is now in the public domain and not subject to claims of executive privilege. His testimony will likely implicate others who also have direct knowledge. (If we don’t see William Barr and Mike Pompeo being called in this trial. They will surely be sitting in a public hearing one day). Any witnesses that are named are now relieved to testify since executive privilege cannot be used to hide misdeeds. Looks like Chief Justice John Roberts is going to have to earn his keep here as he will surely be called on to rule in this matter. He’s not going to go down in history as complicit in this “drug deal”.
This means that the defense must pivot to try to make the Bidens the story. They have no other recourse but to to try to put them on trial. If they press for Joe Biden’s testimony, that is going to be a major tactical error on their part. Biden can fully explain the history of Ukraine’s fight for independence and its strategic importance to America’s interest. The votes and the complicit acts of Senators in that room who agreed to withhold aid in order to remove a corrupt prosecutor will further expose their hypocrisy.
Should he be called, Biden’s son Hunter will have nothing to offer the proceedings relevant to the facts in the case. It will be transparent as to the intention of Republicans to allow a vote to pass for his testimony.
This is a nightmare, no win situation for Senate Republicans and they deserve every bit of it.


dailykos--2020-01-28--Impeaching Trump may help Republicans hold on to the Presidency and Save Their Party.

There may be several ways to argue that if the Republicans in the Senate were to join with the Democrats to remove Trump from office , it may benefit the Republican party .
It may also assist them in holding on to the Presidency and the Senate Majority .
For example , if after hearing from witnesses and reviewing whatever documents are produced , 20 or so Republicans join with the Democrats and vote to remove him from office , what happens next ?
Pence becomes President and perhaps installs a somewhat more competent and arguably less controversial administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation , to come together again and reject the partisan political warfare that has so divided us .
They then can go on to continue the pro-business , anti-immigrant and other policies of the current administration but with a more humane face .
They could , for example , in order to show their good intentions , dial back on some of the more inhuman policies imposed on those seeking asylum on our Southern Border , and/or reverse the rhetoric regarding climate change , probably without taking effective action .
The at-risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting against removal or by some other strategy .
There would be plenty of time to repair the damage between the trial and the election .
One of the so-called moderate and well-known Republicans like Romney could then become the nominee .
I suspect , as a result , Democratic enthusiasm for activism generated by Trump ’ s behavior would abate with a resulting fall-off in Democratic voters at the polls .
Meanwhile , the 10 % or so of Republicans who have left the party may flock back to support the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be relied upon to continue to vote and vote Republican because they always do so .
They are also easily frightened by Socialism and open border Democratic candidates .
The Trumpite radical activists , always a small percentage of the voting population , becomes the wild card .
They would be somewhat like the more radical Democrats have been in several past Presidential elections .
I suspect there are other ways this can happen , but we should not assume there are not clever political operatives on the Republican already gaming options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 or so Senators not up for reelection in 2020 and at least 10 of those who are up for reelection have little fear of the blowback from Trump voters .
Also , some of the 30 we know have Presidential aspirations .
Removal of Trump may and probably is viewed by many of them as a positive .
Just ask yourself , if Trump is removed and a more “ respectable ” candidate replaces him , would you still vote for the Democratic candidate for President if the one we nominate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a third-party candidate or stay home from the polls ?
Will the independent voters who may be troubled by Trump ’ s behavior stay home or vote for the moderate candidate ?
Like most politicians , Republicans seek by whatever means possible to preserve their power and position .
Neither courage nor martyrdom should be expected of our elected officials even though we may honor those few who do .
Political calculations are rarely what they appear to be on the surface .

There may be several ways to argue that if the Republicans in the Senate were to join with the Democrats to remove Trump from office, it may benefit the Republican party. It may also assist them in holding on to the Presidency and the Senate Majority.
For example, if after hearing from witnesses and reviewing whatever documents are produced, 20 or so Republicans join with the Democrats and vote to remove him from office, what happens next?
Pence becomes President and perhaps installs a somewhat more competent and arguably less controversial administration. He and his administration urge us, the nation, to come together again and reject the partisan political warfare that has so divided us. They then can go on to continue the pro-business, anti-immigrant and other policies of the current administration but with a more humane face. They could, for example, in order to show their good intentions, dial back on some of the more inhuman policies imposed on those seeking asylum on our Southern Border, and/or reverse the rhetoric regarding climate change, probably without taking effective action.
The at-risk Republican Senators can be buffered somewhat by voting against removal or by some other strategy. There would be plenty of time to repair the damage between the trial and the election.
One of the so-called moderate and well-known Republicans like Romney could then become the nominee. I suspect, as a result, Democratic enthusiasm for activism generated by Trump’s behavior would abate with a resulting fall-off in Democratic voters at the polls. Meanwhile, the 10% or so of Republicans who have left the party may flock back to support the more respectable business-oriented moderate. The older Trumpites can be relied upon to continue to vote and vote Republican because they always do so. They are also easily frightened by Socialism and open border Democratic candidates. The Trumpite radical activists, always a small percentage of the voting population, becomes the wild card. They would be somewhat like the more radical Democrats have been in several past Presidential elections.
I suspect there are other ways this can happen, but we should not assume there are not clever political operatives on the Republican already gaming options like this.
We should remember the 30 or so Senators not up for reelection in 2020 and at least 10 of those who are up for reelection have little fear of the blowback from Trump voters. Also, some of the 30 we know have Presidential aspirations. Removal of Trump may and probably is viewed by many of them as a positive.
Just ask yourself, if Trump is removed and a more “respectable” candidate replaces him, would you still vote for the Democratic candidate for President if the one we nominate is someone you abhor? Would you vote for a third-party candidate or stay home from the polls? Will the independent voters who may be troubled by Trump’s behavior stay home or vote for the moderate candidate?
Like most politicians, Republicans seek by whatever means possible to preserve their power and position. Neither courage nor martyrdom should be expected of our elected officials even though we may honor those few who do. Political calculations are rarely what they appear to be on the surface.


dailykos--2020-01-28--Future Presidents Will Seek The Dershowitz Defense If Trump Is Acquitted

Oh that pesky impeachment thing that comes up three times every 230 years .
Ken Starr who pursued Clinton with the gusto of Javert Stalking Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo ’ s Les Miserables .
Starr was like a dog with a bone , he never let go until he found something he could nail Clinton with .
He testified in 1998 that impeachment was the only outcome that satisfied the constitutional requirements for such actions by the president .
Maybe he thought a blow job could bring down the Republic .
Today we saw a rehabilitated Ken Starr who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might misuse them .
He is uniquely qualified to speak to that danger .
It was Alan Dershowitz ’ s end of day argument that no president , or any government official for that matter , can be impeached unless they commit a statutory crime that probably made legal scholar ’ s heads explode in every law school in the country .
So taking this rationale to the edge , a parking ticket has a better chance of getting a president impeached over putting an entire country at risk by doing the bidding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was a bizarre argument , presented at a pace that didn ’ t give the listener time to digest the information that was coming at them like a 60 mile an hour wind .
Filled with dates , history and names of obscure judges mixed in with the founding fathers , I have no doubt that he was convincing for those who need to believe it .
Circular arguments that would reverse and turn in to the opposite of the original premise may dazzle the rubes but Senators should know better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime , who decides if it meets the standard of a crime ?
When impeachment was put in to the constitution they hadn ’ t established the federal criminal statutes yet .
Not all the Senators are lawyers , or if they are may not be well versed in criminal law .
If treason and bribery are the gold standard for meeting the bar for impeachment , Trump has surely checked these boxes when he assisted a foreign adversary by weakening an ally and was willing to use United States tax funds to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like treason and bribery to me .
I know Mr. Dershowitz desperately wants that Supreme Court seat and thinks only Trump would be crazy enough to give him one .
That would require a second term .
When the professor said today that he voted for Clinton , that door slammed shut .
For a moment he was relevant again , just like the OJ Simpson days .

Oh that pesky impeachment thing that comes up three times every 230 years. Ken Starr who pursued Clinton with the gusto of Javert Stalking Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. Starr was like a dog with a bone, he never let go until he found something he could nail Clinton with. He testified in 1998 that impeachment was the only outcome that satisfied the constitutional requirements for such actions by the president. Maybe he thought a blow job could bring down the Republic. Today we saw a rehabilitated Ken Starr who thinks impeachments are unwise, that people might misuse them. He is uniquely qualified to speak to that danger.
It was Alan Dershowitz’s end of day argument that no president, or any government official for that matter, can be impeached unless they commit a statutory crime that probably made legal scholar’s heads explode in every law school in the country. So taking this rationale to the edge, a parking ticket has a better chance of getting a president impeached over putting an entire country at risk by doing the bidding of a foreign adversary for personal gain. It was a bizarre argument, presented at a pace that didn’t give the listener time to digest the information that was coming at them like a 60 mile an hour wind. Filled with dates, history and names of obscure judges mixed in with the founding fathers, I have no doubt that he was convincing for those who need to believe it. Circular arguments that would reverse and turn in to the opposite of the original premise may dazzle the rubes but Senators should know better.
So if it must be a crime, who decides if it meets the standard of a crime? When impeachment was put in to the constitution they hadn’t established the federal criminal statutes yet. Not all the Senators are lawyers, or if they are may not be well versed in criminal law. If treason and bribery are the gold standard for meeting the bar for impeachment, Trump has surely checked these boxes when he assisted a foreign adversary by weakening an ally and was willing to use United States tax funds to help himself through extortion. That sounds like treason and bribery to me.
I know Mr. Dershowitz desperately wants that Supreme Court seat and thinks only Trump would be crazy enough to give him one. That would require a second term. When the professor said today that he voted for Clinton, that door slammed shut. For a moment he was relevant again, just like the OJ Simpson days.


dailykos--2020-01-28--Wile E Bolton. Supergenius!

Wile E Bolton. Supergenius!

I don ’ t much like John Bolton .
I don ’ t like his politics , I don ’ t like his superior attitude , I don ’ t like his opinions , I don ’ t like his free abandon to send other peoples sons and daughters to war , and I don ’ t like that goddamn mustache , which mostly looks like something you ’ d use to clean out the bottom of the bird cage , which is why shit comes out of Bolton ’ s mouth every time he opens it .
But all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one thing that I don ’ t think about John Bolton .
And I don ’ t think that he ’ s a stupid man .
John Bolton had quite the weekend , didn ’ t he ?
On Saturday it leaked that he had sent a manuscript to the White House , in which he stated that His Lowness had personally told Bolton that not a penny of Ukraine aid would flow until Ukraine stated publicly the investigations into the Biden ’ s and Burisma .
Which of course caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half a mouthful of Super Size fries , grease up his stubby twitter thumbs , and screech out his disdain for all things Bolton .
Quite a coup for John Bolton , eh ?
In one unfounded rumor , he not only forced a hysterical response from The $ 1 Store Caligula , he managed to reinsert his own name back into prominence in the national discussion of the Trump impeachment trial .
Remember what I said , I don ’ t believe that John Bolton is a stupid man , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brilliance , at least from a marketing standpoint .
People are missing the critical word here .
In the article , it said that Bolton had sent a manuscript to the White House , with his explosive allegations .
As a self published author , I know the difference .
A manuscript is not rough musings .
A manuscript is not a rough draft .
A manuscript is a finished product !
A manuscript is sent to a person quoted in , or the subject of a portion of the book , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide an explanation or rebuttal to the information contained in the manuscript .
John Bolton ’ s book is fucking ready to go !
Which means that John Bolton wants to testify in front of the Senate the way an itchy dog wants a flea collar .
John Bolton desperately wants to testify to the Senate , to lay out his explosive allegations , knowing that the Senate can question him only on the subject of the allegations in the two House articles of impeachment !
Which means Trump ’ s Ukraine phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his subsequent obstruction of congress .
And then John Bolton can go on every cable network and Sunday news show in the country , and pitch his book , slyly referring to all of the really , really juicy shit from his time in the White House that he didn ’ t testify to in the Senate trial .
And it will work like a charm .
Donald Trump has spent his entire life promoting himself as the zen Master of branding .
But in John Bolton , The Pampers President has finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do everything in his power to use Trump ’ s branding to push his own brand for his upcoming book .
And it don ’ t get much slicker than that .
To know the future , look to the past .
before the insanity of the 2020 election , relive the insanity of the 2016 GOP primary campaign , and the general election , to see how we got to where we are .
Copies of President Evil , and the sequel , President Evil II , A Clodwork Orange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the links above .
Catch up before the upcoming release of the third book in the trilogy , President Evil III : All The Presidents Fen

I don’t much like John Bolton. I don’t like his politics, I don’t like his superior attitude, I don’t like his opinions, I don’t like his free abandon to send other peoples sons and daughters to war, and I don’t like that goddamn mustache, which mostly looks like something you’d use to clean out the bottom of the bird cage, which is why shit comes out of Bolton’s mouth every time he opens it. But all of that being said, if there’s one thing that I don’t think about John Bolton. And I don’t think that he’s a stupid man.
John Bolton had quite the weekend, didn’t he? On Saturday it leaked that he had sent a manuscript to the White House, in which he stated that His Lowness had personally told Bolton that not a penny of Ukraine aid would flow until Ukraine stated publicly the investigations into the Biden’s and Burisma. Which of course caused Traitor Tot to suddenly spit out a half a mouthful of Super Size fries, grease up his stubby twitter thumbs, and screech out his disdain for all things Bolton.
Quite a coup for John Bolton, eh? In one unfounded rumor, he not only forced a hysterical response from The $1 Store Caligula, he managed to reinsert his own name back into prominence in the national discussion of the Trump impeachment trial. Remember what I said, I don’t believe that John Bolton is a stupid man, and with this move, he is rapidly approaching brilliance, at least from a marketing standpoint.
People are missing the critical word here. In the article, it said that Bolton had sent a manuscript to the White House, with his explosive allegations. As a self published author, I know the difference. A manuscript is not rough musings. A manuscript is not a rough draft. A manuscript is a finished product! A manuscript is sent to a person quoted in, or the subject of a portion of the book, allowing them to read the content, and provide an explanation or rebuttal to the information contained in the manuscript. John Bolton’s book is fucking ready to go!
Which means that John Bolton wants to testify in front of the Senate the way an itchy dog wants a flea collar. John Bolton desperately wants to testify to the Senate, to lay out his explosive allegations, knowing that the Senate can question him only on the subject of the allegations in the two House articles of impeachment! Which means Trump’s Ukraine phone call, the extortion attempt, and his subsequent obstruction of congress. And then John Bolton can go on every cable network and Sunday news show in the country, and pitch his book, slyly referring to all of the really, really
juicy shit from his time in the White House that he didn’t testify to in the Senate trial. And it will work like a charm.
Donald Trump has spent his entire life promoting himself as the zen Master of branding. But in John Bolton, The Pampers President has finally met his match. John Bolton is going to do everything in his power to use Trump’s branding to push his own brand for his upcoming book. And it don’t get much slicker than that.
Originally posted on Politizoojm.com
To know the future, look to the past. before the insanity of the 2020 election, relive the insanity of the 2016 GOP primary campaign, and the general election, to see how we got to where we are. Copies of President Evil, and the sequel, President Evil II, A Clodwork Orange are available as e-books on Amazon, at the links above. Catch up before the upcoming release of the third book in the trilogy, President Evil III: All The Presidents Fen


dailykos--2020-01-28--Tomgram: Frida Berrigan, "We Get to Live in the Mayor's House!"

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com .
To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week , click here .
Let me say a few words about Greta Thunberg .
She ’ s now 17 and remarkably unfazed by big bullies of all kinds , including President Donald Trump .
She entered our world all alone with her climate-change strike sign that sparked a movement and she ’ s weathered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune , including bullying from you-know-who .
She even faced off against him at Davos recently .
And good for her .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely .
She got involved .
She grasped the true nature of a global crisis and responded .
She had no way of knowing , or even imagining , that her sole act ( sitting outside the Swedish parliament alone with a protest sign on Fridays instead of attending school ) would launch a global movement that might , in the end , matter on this beleaguered planet of ours .
None of us ever really knows what the effects of our acts will be when we try , in some fashion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least a not-far-worse ) place .
At 75 , I ’ m encouraged by Greta Thunberg , as I am by anyone who acts in large , small , or simply unknown ways , to try to make a difference in a world that desperately needs to be different .
That , for me , is particularly true in this increasingly beleaguered , impeachable country of ours with its ever more one-party and one-president ( with hangers-on still called “ Republicans ” ) political system .
I was impressed , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angela Watters , managing editor of the website Reader Supported News , wrote about her run to become a school-board member in her hometown .
Given this world , a lot more of us better start running for office or trying to change things in some fashion , or we ’ ll just find ourselves running , period .
With that in mind , consider TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan ’ s mayoral run as the candidate of the Green Party in New London , Connecticut , a town already endangered by rising seas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grip of a giant defense contractor .
And by the way , you don ’ t have to win to make a difference in this world of ours .
Win or “ lose , ” we all win when you go at it as Berrigan , Watters , and Thunberg have done .
Tom Sometimes We Can Make Our Own Hope Running for Office in the Age of Donald Trump and Climate Change By Frida Berrigan “ YES !
” he yelled , thrusting his fist in the air .
“ We get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house !
” My son ’ s reaction when I told his two sisters and him that I was running for mayor of our town became the laugh line of my campaign .
But in real time , I had to burst his bubble .
“ Oh Seamus , ” I said , smiling , “ the mayor just lives in his own house .
There is no ‘ mayor ’ s house.
’ If we win , we ’ ll keep living in our house and it will become the mayor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicative of his boundless confidence in his mother and his seven-year-old 's ignorance of how the world actually works .
But I held his reaction close when I was feeling less than sure of myself , when I was headed to my third campaign event of any day as the Green Party candidate and found myself eating popcorn for dinner at 9:30 at night , listening to my kids breathe in their sleep instead of reading them bedtime stories .
I ’ ll cut to the chase : I lost .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connecticut .
On Tuesday , November 7th , when the polls opened at six in the morning , it was cold and clear .
It rained hard through the middle of the day .
When those polls closed at eight that night , it was warmer and humid , but no longer raining .
I was outside all day , rain or ( not quite ) shine , moving between the three polling stations with my friends and our signs and our cards that explained how to “ Write In Frida for Mayor.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t just running as a third-party candidate in a Democratic town , but as one not even on the ballot .
The state had lost my paperwork .
The Green Party hired a lawyer and sued , but the judge ruled against us and declined to order the secretary of state to put my name on the ballot .
That setback made an uphill campaign into an Everest .
I embraced the climb .
Being a pacifist and an activist means that lost causes are par for the course for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe hard work is its own reward .
The campaign season started in earnest ( for me , anyway ) after Labor Day , as I tried to balance work , family , and this new experience , this job-and-a-half running for mayor .
Oh , yeah , and there was my mother , the peace activist Elizabeth McAlister .
She was then in pre-trial detention for a Plowshares action at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in coastal Georgia .
Throughout the campaign , I asked New Londoners the same questions over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about New London ?
What frustrates you about our town ?
What 's the one concrete change that would improve your life ?
The answers were varied and often inspiring .
Unexpectedly , I found myself back in school on a crash course , discovering what ’ s wonderful ( and not so wonderful ) about my chosen hometown in the age of climate change and Donald Trump !
I even learned a few things along the way .
What follows is just a partial list .
Celebrity Matters , Even Though It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia for one of my mom ’ s hearings , I spent time with the actor and peace activist Martin Sheen .
Standing near the church where supporters of my mom were ladling out dinner , we shot a low-tech political ad .
It promptly went low-key viral and signaled to the pols in New London that something different might be happening .
I know Martin Sheen is famous and I love him as an actor and a person , but I wasn ’ t prepared for how excited people would be about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
As far as I can tell , it didn ’ t get more people to vote for me , but boy was it a conversation starter !
The political scene in New London is more than well established .
It ’ s written in concrete : Go Democrat or go home !
In our town of 27,000 , set along the confluence of the Thames River and Long Island Sound , only about 16,000 of us are registered to vote and only 3,000 to 4,000 of us turn out for off-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were about 70 Greens .
Our party ’ s strategy was to bring out new voters , a great thought , but I had no idea how hard that would prove to be .
I felt strongly that environmental and climate-change issues should be reframed as relevant to the poor and working class of New London .
So when , for instance , I talked about creating a more walkable city , I was careful to emphasize not just that such a goal would be an environmental plus , but that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , they walk out of necessity , so safer sidewalks and a city infrastructure that takes walkers into account -- including people in wheelchairs or with limited sight and hearing -- would be a good investment for all .
The same was true when it came to planting more trees .
A better urban canopy wouldn ’ t just make our local world look better or absorb more carbon dioxide , but slow street traffic and make life better for otherwise unwilling pedestrians .
I had hoped we would increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 100 , which didn ’ t happen , but we did add a handful of new members and reengaged some older ones .
Call it the most modest of successes .
Be Nice and Make Your Points We ran an issue-focused campaign .
I ’ m going to live in New London for a long time and so are my opponents .
I generally avoided taking pot shots at them , cultivating instead what I thought of as a spirit of gentle disruption .
Here ’ s an example : most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor hired live outside New London ( something that goes against the city ’ s charter ) .
The incumbent claimed he did so “ to get the best , ” which sounded as if he felt there was no one in town good enough to run our departments .
At debates and forums , I pushed back hard on that issue , insisting that I would hire locally , not just because the charter says we should , but because not doing so sends a message to our kids that we aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices also weaken our tax base , since some of the highest-paying jobs in our community go to people who don ’ t even pay property taxes here .
It took time to learn how to be critical without being cranky and offer creative solutions to decades of short-sighted , reactive decision-making by a relatively unaccountable leadership .
I also wanted to demonstrate that someone who was n't a middle-aged white man could make a splash by running for mayor in our town .
At 45 , I ’ m no longer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head full of white hair .
But my two opponents were 20 years older , had grown up just blocks apart in the same New London neighborhood , and went to high school together .
Long time friends and rivals , they could argue over who said what at a city council meeting a decade ago ( and they did ) .
They took shots at each other over a past they shared .
In one debate , the Republican even condemned the Democrat for driving a Tahoe while he drove a Prius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official city-owned mayor ’ s car .
“ I walked here , ” I said , “ and I ’ m driving home with the three members of my family in a 2002 Honda Odyssey .
We ’ re happy to give you a ride to further decrease our carbon footprint.
” Everyone laughed and no one took us up on the offer .
Do What You Can In 2018 , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore out her shoes as she campaigned to be the youngest member of the House of Representatives .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those shoes with the line , “ I knocked on doors until the rainwater came through my soles .
Respect the hustle.
” I didn ’ t wear out my shoes , but I do respect the hustle , AOC , I do !
Still , I did what I could .
When invited to run by the local chapter of the Green Party , I said I would do so to promote issues and amplify voices that weren ’ t getting a reasonable hearing , but that I couldn ’ t run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job and young kids to take care of .
I held as fast as I could to that commitment , but thinking back on the -- by conservative count -- 14 public meetings , eight house parties , four television appearances ( three of them hour-long ) , three public debates with the other mayoral candidates , and daily check-ins with my campaign manager , party chair , and fellow Green Party candidates , I still feel exhausted .
What I can ’ t document is just what it meant to continually make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my neighbors .
That , without a doubt , was the most rewarding and beautiful part of the experience .
Handing out candy to trick or treaters , I ended up chatting with four high school football players who remembered my visit to their school earlier that week and told me their moms were voting for me .
I was so happy , I dumped the rest of our candy in their bags .
I was walking to work one morning , balancing a birthday cake in one hand and trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truck pulled up next to me and the driver called out , “ I hope you win !
Nobody cares about sanitation !
” We chatted for a few minutes as I assured him that I knew the funds for his department had been cut in recent years and that the Green Party platform supported more money for public works , while emphasizing recycling and composting .
He cheered , toot-tooted his horn , and we both continued with our day .
And by the way , no one told me how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doors and chat with strangers , each conversation offering me a yet more complex map of my community .
I ’ m glad I threw my hat in the political ring in 2019 .
The whole process felt like a personal balm in a national political landscape that was pitted , mired , and aflame .
My stump speech -- yes , I had one !
-- began with these lines : “ At a time when the national news is almost uniformly , massively bad , the New London Green Party is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good ideas , hopes , and visions for our small and dynamic , diverse and youthful , historic and struggling city !
” And honestly we did just that .
I can look at the dates of each of the debates and recall that while we were talking about immigration , the climate crisis and economic development , representation and equity , and how systemic racism plays out in local power struggles , the nation as a whole was mired in a kind of political hell .
Our first debate was held in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nervous , overprepared , and my microphone gave me trouble .
My kids were playing in the hallway , while more than 150 people crowded the auditorium .
I answered one question in Spanish , said I would reject the $ 124,000 mayoral salary because one-third of the people in our community were living below the poverty line , and insisted that the police should not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , better known as ICE , in apprehending people in our community without documents .
In the last 18 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the headlines .
That very day in the New York Times , for instance , one headline was : “ U.S .
Disputes Finding That Airstrikes on Afghan Drug Labs Killed 30 Civilians.
” And war wasn ’ t far from our community either .
During the debate , moderated by the publisher of our local newspaper , I was asked with a gotcha edge , “ Are you a pacifist and how will that impact your relationship with Electric Boat ?
” ( Electric Boat , part of General Dynamics , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractors , makes submarines for the Navy in New London . )
I responded calmly : “ I am a pacifist .
I believe war is a failure of the imagination , that it is never necessary.
” I then went on to talk about what a bad civic neighbor General Dynamics is .
The saying goes , I commented , that “ Boeing makes planes , Raytheon makes missiles , General Dynamics makes money ” -- and I reminded the audience that New London sees very little of that money , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying its top execs so much of it .
It also receives millions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for workforce training and infrastructure , even when orchestrating stock buybacks to enrich its shareholders .
Generally , I championed a future New London divested from militarism .
“ Don ’ t go against General Dynamics , ” a man cautioned me after one of the debates , “ they are all we got.
” This is the game that corporations play against communities like New London and the military-industrial complex is even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ubers .
They are all we ’ ve got ?
Really ?
How sad is that ?
What do we want as a community ?
How do we want to be known ?
We used to be known as the Whaling City , a brutal , dirty business if ever there was one .
Now , our town struggles .
So many of our kids qualify for reduced lunch that the district offers free lunch to all schoolchildren .
But here ’ s another reality : the majority of those with good-paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t live here .
So if that ’ s all we got , we got problems !
The second debate was held in the basement conference room of our library and in that one ( I was less nervous ) we were asked about climate change .
I responded that , as a mother of three kids who deserve a decent future on this planet of ours , climate change was what kept me up at night .
As the mayor of a coastal town , I added , my strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
Under my administration , there would be more planning and less zoning .
As a town on the water at a time when sea levels are already rising , we won ’ t be able to pump and dump our way out of even the five-inch rise in water levels predicted to occur in the next 15 years , which means every new pebble of development needs to be organized through a climate-change lens .
Parking lots -- in other words , stretches of land covered in asphalt ?
Not when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than have it cascading down Garfield Avenue or flooding Broad Street .
Worldwide , climate change hits poor people harder and New London will be no exception .
While the poor here tend to live further from the water ’ s edge , the dollar-chasing , asphalt-covered businesses along some of our key commercial streets create ideal sites for increasingly regular inland flooding .
The elderly living in high rises are vulnerable to extended power outages when that happens and , as a food-importing community , our food supply is vulnerable , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder .
With that in mind , I added that , as mayor , I would work to make New London greener , more resilient , and smarter about climate change .
There ’ s no techno-fix for the predicament our fossil-fuelized global system has left us in , but we have to deal .
One irony struck me that night , as my opponents labored through their climate-change answers : our debate happened the day after an Ohio Democratic presidential debate during which not a single question was asked about climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard that a restaurant three blocks from the river ’ s edge had water pouring in the back door and out the front one .
The third debate , held at a senior center , was less formal than the other two and moderated by an attorney who gave us each 20 minutes to use as we wanted .
That night , I pointed out that , of the dozen or so departments in the city ’ s governing structure , only two were run by women , but that I was excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing for the board of education and city council .
( Thirteen women , myself included , ran for public office that election season . )
Asked ( as I often was ) about my inexperience in politics , I talked about the toolbox of skills I had amassed in an active life ( as well as a life as an activist ) , including community organizing , consensus building , and deep listening , not to speak of a sense of deep accountability I feel for my community .
You don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a master ’ s in business administration ( my two opponents ) to work effectively with New London ’ s communities .
In fact , professional expertise and ego can sometimes get in the way of representing community interests and truly grasping , no less meeting , community needs .
In the end , on that rainy election day in November , 394 people voted for me .
It may not sound like much after all those months of effort , but that was more than 10 % of the vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know me , truly want to vote for me , remember the writing-in process , and then do it correctly .
So each of those 394 votes felt hard won indeed .
People keep asking me if I ’ m going to run again .
Who knows ?
The next election isn ’ t for four years , which feels like a lifetime from now and , believe me ( given our world ) , I have plenty to do in the meantime .
Frida Berrigan is the author of It Runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Radicals and Growing into Rebellious Motherhood .
She is a TomDispatch regular and writes the Little Insurrections column for WagingNonviolence.Org .
She has three children and lives in New London , Connecticut , where she is a gardener and community organizer .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer ’ s new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World War II .

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.
Let me say a few words about Greta Thunberg. She’s now 17 and remarkably unfazed by big bullies of all kinds, including President Donald Trump. She entered our world all alone with her climate-change strike sign that sparked a movement and she’s weathered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, including bullying from you-know-who. She even faced off against him at Davos recently. And good for her.
But I bring her up for another reason entirely. She got involved. She grasped the true nature of a global crisis and responded. She had no way of knowing, or even imagining, that her sole act (sitting outside the Swedish parliament alone with a protest sign on Fridays instead of attending school) would launch a global movement that might, in the end, matter on this beleaguered planet of ours.
None of us ever really knows what the effects of our acts will be when we try, in some fashion, to make this a better (or at least a not-far-worse) place. At 75, I’m encouraged by Greta Thunberg, as I am by anyone who acts in large, small, or simply unknown ways, to try to make a difference in a world that desperately needs to be different. That, for me, is particularly true in this increasingly beleaguered, impeachable country of ours with its ever more one-party and one-president (with hangers-on still called “Republicans”) political system.
I was impressed, for instance, by a series of articles that Angela Watters, managing editor of the website Reader Supported News, wrote about her run to become a school-board member in her hometown. Given this world, a lot more of us better start running for office or trying to change things in some fashion, or we’ll just find ourselves running, period. With that in mind, consider TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan’s mayoral run as the candidate of the Green Party in New London, Connecticut, a town already endangered by rising seas from our warming planet and in the grip of a giant defense contractor. And by the way, you don’t have to win to make a difference in this world of ours. Win or “lose,” we all win when you go at it as Berrigan, Watters, and Thunberg have done. Tom
Sometimes We Can Make Our Own Hope
Running for Office in the Age of Donald Trump and Climate Change
By Frida Berrigan
“YES!” he yelled, thrusting his fist in the air. “We get to live in the mayor’s house!” My son’s reaction when I told his two sisters and him that I was running for mayor of our town became the laugh line of my campaign. But in real time, I had to burst his bubble. “Oh Seamus,” I said, smiling, “the mayor just lives in his own house. There is no ‘mayor’s house.’ If we win, we’ll keep living in our house and it will become the mayor’s house.”
Seamus’ reaction was indicative of his boundless confidence in his mother and his seven-year-old's ignorance of how the world actually works. But I held his reaction close when I was feeling less than sure of myself, when I was headed to my third campaign event of any day as the Green Party candidate and found myself eating popcorn for dinner at 9:30 at night, listening to my kids breathe in their sleep instead of reading them bedtime stories.
I’ll cut to the chase: I lost. I am not the mayor of New London, Connecticut.
On Tuesday, November 7th, when the polls opened at six in the morning, it was cold and clear. It rained hard through the middle of the day. When those polls closed at eight that night, it was warmer and humid, but no longer raining. I was outside all day, rain or (not quite) shine, moving between the three polling stations with my friends and our signs and our cards that explained how to “Write In Frida for Mayor.”
That’s right: I wasn’t just running as a third-party candidate in a Democratic town, but as one not even on the ballot. The state had lost my paperwork. The Green Party hired a lawyer and sued, but the judge ruled against us and declined to order the secretary of state to put my name on the ballot. That setback made an uphill campaign into an Everest. I embraced the climb. Being a pacifist and an activist means that lost causes are par for the course for me and, as a Catholic, I believe hard work is its own reward.
The campaign season started in earnest (for me, anyway) after Labor Day, as I tried to balance work, family, and this new experience, this job-and-a-half running for mayor. Oh, yeah, and there was my mother, the peace activist Elizabeth McAlister. She was then in pre-trial detention for a Plowshares action at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in coastal Georgia.
Throughout the campaign, I asked New Londoners the same questions over and over: What do you love about New London? What frustrates you about our town? What's the one concrete change that would improve your life? The answers were varied and often inspiring.
Unexpectedly, I found myself back in school on a crash course, discovering what’s wonderful (and not so wonderful) about my chosen hometown in the age of climate change and Donald Trump! I even learned a few things along the way. What follows is just a partial list.
Celebrity Matters, Even Though It Shouldn’t
While I was in Georgia for one of my mom’s hearings, I spent time with the actor and peace activist Martin Sheen. Standing near the church where supporters of my mom were ladling out dinner, we shot a low-tech political ad. It promptly went low-key viral and signaled to the pols in New London that something different might be happening. I know Martin Sheen is famous and I love him as an actor and a person, but I wasn’t prepared for how excited people would be about a 45-second clip of the two of us. As far as I can tell, it didn’t get more people to vote for me, but boy was it a conversation starter!
Cultivate a Constituency
The political scene in New London is more than well established. It’s written in concrete: Go Democrat or go home! In our town of 27,000, set along the confluence of the Thames River and Long Island Sound, only about 16,000 of us are registered to vote and only 3,000 to 4,000 of us turn out for off-year local elections. Before this election, there were about 70 Greens. Our party’s strategy was to bring out new voters, a great thought, but I had no idea how hard that would prove to be.
I felt strongly that environmental and climate-change issues should be reframed as relevant to the poor and working class of New London. So when, for instance, I talked about creating a more walkable city, I was careful to emphasize not just that such a goal would be an environmental plus, but that it would aid the working poor, too. After all, they walk out of necessity, so safer sidewalks and a city infrastructure that takes walkers into account -- including people in wheelchairs or with limited sight and hearing -- would be a good investment for all.
The same was true when it came to planting more trees. A better urban canopy wouldn’t just make our local world look better or absorb more carbon dioxide, but slow street traffic and make life better for otherwise unwilling pedestrians.
I had hoped we would increase the local Green Party membership from 70 to 100, which didn’t happen, but we did add a handful of new members and reengaged some older ones. Call it the most modest of successes.
Be Nice and Make Your Points
We ran an issue-focused campaign. I’m going to live in New London for a long time and so are my opponents. I generally avoided taking pot shots at them, cultivating instead what I thought of as a spirit of gentle disruption. Here’s an example: most of the town government department heads the current mayor hired live outside New London (something that goes against the city’s charter). The incumbent claimed he did so “to get the best,” which sounded as if he felt there was no one in town good enough to run our departments.
At debates and forums, I pushed back hard on that issue, insisting that I would hire locally, not just because the charter says we should, but because not doing so sends a message to our kids that we aren’t good enough. Such hiring practices also weaken our tax base, since some of the highest-paying jobs in our community go to people who don’t even pay property taxes here. It took time to learn how to be critical without being cranky and offer creative solutions to decades of short-sighted, reactive decision-making by a relatively unaccountable leadership.
I also wanted to demonstrate that someone who wasn't a middle-aged white man could make a splash by running for mayor in our town. At 45, I’m no longer a young person. I even have a head full of white hair. But my two opponents were 20 years older, had grown up just blocks apart in the same New London neighborhood, and went to high school together. Long time friends and rivals, they could argue over who said what at a city council meeting a decade ago (and they did).
They took shots at each other over a past they shared. In one debate, the Republican even condemned the Democrat for driving a Tahoe while he drove a Prius. Never mind that the Tahoe was the official city-owned mayor’s car. “I walked here,” I said, “and I’m driving home with the three members of my family in a 2002 Honda Odyssey. We’re happy to give you a ride to further decrease our carbon footprint.” Everyone laughed and no one took us up on the offer.
Do What You Can
In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore out her shoes as she campaigned to be the youngest member of the House of Representatives. She even tweeted photos of the bottoms of those shoes with the line, “I knocked on doors until the rainwater came through my soles. Respect the hustle.”
I didn’t wear out my shoes, but I do respect the hustle, AOC, I do! Still, I did what I could. When invited to run by the local chapter of the Green Party, I said I would do so to promote issues and amplify voices that weren’t getting a reasonable hearing, but that I couldn’t run a 24/7 campaign, not with a job and young kids to take care of. I held as fast as I could to that commitment, but thinking back on the -- by conservative count -- 14 public meetings, eight house parties, four television appearances (three of them hour-long), three public debates with the other mayoral candidates, and daily check-ins with my campaign manager, party chair, and fellow Green Party candidates, I still feel exhausted.
What I can’t document is just what it meant to continually make myself visible in my community and connect with my neighbors. That, without a doubt, was the most rewarding and beautiful part of the experience. Handing out candy to trick or treaters, I ended up chatting with four high school football players who remembered my visit to their school earlier that week and told me their moms were voting for me. I was so happy, I dumped the rest of our candy in their bags.
I was walking to work one morning, balancing a birthday cake in one hand and trying to text with the other when a garbage truck pulled up next to me and the driver called out, “I hope you win! Nobody cares about sanitation!” We chatted for a few minutes as I assured him that I knew the funds for his department had been cut in recent years and that the Green Party platform supported more money for public works, while emphasizing recycling and composting. He cheered, toot-tooted his horn, and we both continued with our day.
And by the way, no one told me how much fun it would be to knock on doors and chat with strangers, each conversation offering me a yet more complex map of my community.
Peace Begins at Home
I’m glad I threw my hat in the political ring in 2019. The whole process felt like a personal balm in a national political landscape that was pitted, mired, and aflame. My stump speech -- yes, I had one! -- began with these lines: “At a time when the national news is almost uniformly, massively bad, the New London Green Party is collecting, conveying, and amplifying your good ideas, hopes, and visions for our small and dynamic, diverse and youthful, historic and struggling city!”
And honestly we did just that.
I can look at the dates of each of the debates and recall that while we were talking about immigration, the climate crisis and economic development, representation and equity, and how systemic racism plays out in local power struggles, the nation as a whole was mired in a kind of political hell.
Our first debate was held in an elementary school gym. I was nervous, overprepared, and my microphone gave me trouble. My kids were playing in the hallway, while more than 150 people crowded the auditorium. I answered one question in Spanish, said I would reject the $124,000 mayoral salary because one-third of the people in our community were living below the poverty line, and insisted that the police should not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, in apprehending people in our community without documents.
In the last 18 years, war has seldom been out of the headlines. That very day in the New York Times, for instance, one headline was: “U.S. Disputes Finding That Airstrikes on Afghan Drug Labs Killed 30 Civilians.” And war wasn’t far from our community either. During the debate, moderated by the publisher of our local newspaper, I was asked with a gotcha edge, “Are you a pacifist and how will that impact your relationship with Electric Boat?” (Electric Boat, part of General Dynamics, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, makes submarines for the Navy in New London.)
I responded calmly: “I am a pacifist. I believe war is a failure of the imagination, that it is never necessary.” I then went on to talk about what a bad civic neighbor General Dynamics is. The saying goes, I commented, that “Boeing makes planes, Raytheon makes missiles, General Dynamics makes money” -- and I reminded the audience that New London sees very little of that money, in part because the company is too busy paying its top execs so much of it. It also receives millions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for workforce training and infrastructure, even when orchestrating stock buybacks to enrich its shareholders. Generally, I championed a future New London divested from militarism.
“Don’t go against General Dynamics,” a man cautioned me after one of the debates, “they are all we got.” This is the game that corporations play against communities like New London and the military-industrial complex is even better at it than the Amazons and the Ubers.
They are all we’ve got? Really? How sad is that? What do we want as a community? How do we want to be known? We used to be known as the Whaling City, a brutal, dirty business if ever there was one. Now, our town struggles. So many of our kids qualify for reduced lunch that the district offers free lunch to all schoolchildren. But here’s another reality: the majority of those with good-paying jobs at General Dynamics in New London don’t live here. So if that’s all we got, we got problems!
The second debate was held in the basement conference room of our library and in that one (I was less nervous) we were asked about climate change. I responded that, as a mother of three kids who deserve a decent future on this planet of ours, climate change was what kept me up at night. As the mayor of a coastal town, I added, my strategy would be to build for a resilient future.
Under my administration, there would be more planning and less zoning. As a town on the water at a time when sea levels are already rising, we won’t be able to pump and dump our way out of even the five-inch rise in water levels predicted to occur in the next 15 years, which means every new pebble of development needs to be organized through a climate-change lens. Parking lots -- in other words, stretches of land covered in asphalt? Not when we need to absorb runoff, rather than have it cascading down Garfield Avenue or flooding Broad Street.
Worldwide, climate change hits poor people harder and New London will be no exception. While the poor here tend to live further from the water’s edge, the dollar-chasing, asphalt-covered businesses along some of our key commercial streets create ideal sites for increasingly regular inland flooding. The elderly living in high rises are vulnerable to extended power outages when that happens and, as a food-importing community, our food supply is vulnerable, too. All of this hits poor people harder. With that in mind, I added that, as mayor, I would work to make New London greener, more resilient, and smarter about climate change. There’s no techno-fix for the predicament our fossil-fuelized global system has left us in, but we have to deal.
One irony struck me that night, as my opponents labored through their climate-change answers: our debate happened the day after an Ohio Democratic presidential debate during which not a single question was asked about climate change. And that night it rained so hard that a restaurant three blocks from the river’s edge had water pouring in the back door and out the front one.
The third debate, held at a senior center, was less formal than the other two and moderated by an attorney who gave us each 20 minutes to use as we wanted. That night, I pointed out that, of the dozen or so departments in the city’s governing structure, only two were run by women, but that I was excited and impressed by how many women were competing for the board of education and city council. (Thirteen women, myself included, ran for public office that election season.)
Asked (as I often was) about my inexperience in politics, I talked about the toolbox of skills I had amassed in an active life (as well as a life as an activist), including community organizing, consensus building, and deep listening, not to speak of a sense of deep accountability I feel for my community. You don’t have to be a lawyer or have a master’s in business administration (my two opponents) to work effectively with New London’s communities. In fact, professional expertise and ego can sometimes get in the way of representing community interests and truly grasping, no less meeting, community needs.
In the end, on that rainy election day in November, 394 people voted for me. It may not sound like much after all those months of effort, but that was more than 10% of the vote. As a write-in candidate, people had to know me, truly want to vote for me, remember the writing-in process, and then do it correctly. So each of those 394 votes felt hard won indeed.
People keep asking me if I’m going to run again. Who knows? The next election isn’t for four years, which feels like a lifetime from now and, believe me (given our world), I have plenty to do in the meantime.
Frida Berrigan is the author of It Runs In The Family: On Being Raised by Radicals and Growing into Rebellious Motherhood. She is a TomDispatch regular and writes the Little Insurrections column for WagingNonviolence.Org. She has three children and lives in New London, Connecticut, where she is a gardener and community organizer.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 Frida Berrigan


dailykos--2020-01-28--The hugely damaging ramifications of the Republicans’ impeachment position is simple to understand.

President Trump has been impeached for asking and pressuring a foreign country to interfere in our next election in his favor .
Many Republican Senators have made it clear that they want to acquit Trump and further to exonerate him by saying that Trump did “ nothing wrong.
” Much of the Democratic opposition and some in the press rightly warn that outright condoning such conduct will only invite President Trump ( and future presidents ) to increasingly seek foreign interference in our elections .
But this warning gravely understates the actual ramifications .
If the Republican Senate were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then future presidential candidates , and lower office candidates , will start canvassing foreign countries to solicit interference on their behalf in our elections .
After all , if that conduct is not wrong , and if one can expect your opponent ( Trump or anyone else ) to be availing themselves of this advantage .
.
.
well , then , you would do it too .
Indeed , one might practically need to do so .
And so , in short order , will be soliciting foreign help and interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , logically , as cabinet-level nominees seeking appointment and power . )
The result would be an extraordinarily damaging revolution in our elections and democracy .
Most incumbents and challengers , and at varying elective levels , presumably will be seeking foreign assistance and interference ( and often like Trump , secretly ) .
Properly understood then , the Republican notion of exonerating President Trump must be understood as a watershed event as significant and debilitating as the decision allowing “ dark money , ” billion dollar interests to dominate our politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules-of-the-road not just for Trump , but for all future campaigns — with equal or significantly more disastrous effects .
This simple fact - that this will be limited to President Trump - establishes the plain inanity and danger of the approach advocated by far too many Republican senators .
It would trample upon - indeed , obliterate - the foremost concern ( and established protections ) of the Founders : corruption of democratic government by the intrigue and interests of foreign states and actors : In short , this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountability .
This is about whether our democracy is imperiled and fundamentally changed , and whether we casually allow the careful work of the Founders to be tossed aside merely to protect the venal , parochial interests of a man like Donald Trump .

President Trump has been impeached for asking and pressuring a foreign country to interfere in our next election in his favor. Many Republican Senators have made it clear that they want to acquit Trump and further to exonerate him by saying that Trump did “nothing wrong.”
Much of the Democratic opposition and some in the press rightly warn that outright condoning such conduct will only invite President Trump (and future presidents) to increasingly seek foreign interference in our elections.
But this warning gravely understates the actual ramifications. If the Republican Senate were to absolve or condone Trump’s conduct, then all future presidential candidates, and lower office candidates, will start canvassing foreign countries to solicit interference on their behalf in our elections. After all, if that conduct is not wrong, and if one can expect your opponent (Trump or anyone else) to be availing themselves of this advantage . . . well, then, you would do it too. Indeed, one might practically need to do so. And so, in short order, all major candidates will be soliciting foreign help and interference in our elections. (As well, logically, as cabinet-level nominees seeking appointment and power.)
The result would be an extraordinarily damaging revolution in our elections and democracy. Most incumbents and challengers, and at varying elective levels, presumably will be seeking foreign assistance and interference (and often like Trump, secretly). Properly understood then, the Republican notion of exonerating President Trump must be understood as a watershed event as significant and debilitating as the Citizens United decision allowing “dark money,” billion dollar interests to dominate our politics. Like with Citizens United , this would fundamentally change the rules-of-the-road not just for Trump, but for all future campaigns — with equal or significantly more disastrous effects.
This simple fact - that this will not be limited to President Trump - establishes the plain inanity and danger of the approach advocated by far too many Republican senators. It would trample upon - indeed, obliterate - the foremost concern (and established protections) of the Founders: corruption of democratic government by the intrigue and interests of foreign states and actors:
These Americans [the “Founders”] understood that allowing a foreign adversary to determine the outcome of elections would mean the death of their experiment in democracy. Without integrity in elections, there could be no legitimate representation in government.
In short, this isn’t simply about whether Trump maddeningly escapes accountability. This is about whether our democracy is imperiled and fundamentally changed, and whether we casually allow the careful work of the Founders to be tossed aside merely to protect the venal, parochial interests of a man like Donald Trump.
UPDATE: I am listening now to Schiff again explain this as a threat of establishing acceptance of future Presidential misconduct. What I would like to hear Schiff say is: “If you, Senators, condone President Trump’s conduct, then what you’re really saying is that it is also OK for you, as Senators, and the candidates opposing you, to solicit foreign interference in your own elections.” Put the challenge starkly to them and that they will be complicit in a larger scale of misconduct, including by Senators. Because this is what they are doing.