Two Things to Do Between Now and Next November (All the Rest Is Gravy)

Between the impeachment hearings, the Democratic primaries, and the accelerating chaos that has marked our domestic and foreign policy since January of 2017, the task of civic engagement can seem hopelessly complex. Whom to support? What to oppose? Can I fail to become part of the problem?

I have good news. For all people of conscience (whatever your political allegiance, but here I will particularly address my fellow Democrats), there are only two essential tasks. Succeed in these two endeavors, and you need not fear failing to have a positive impact, whatever else you may or may not accomplish. They are:

1) Repudiate Violence

This is not a call for civility. All such protests are meaningless now. When the President of the United States tells Representatives of color to "go back where they came from" and the Reverend Franklin Graham sells a children's picture book, Donald Builds the Wall, in which immigrants who have had their children taken from them on our border are allegorically represented as reptilian swamp creatures, our politics have become so obscene that all calls for civility from the right are hypocrisy, while those from the left cannot possibly be received in good faith.

But no amount of verbal or symbolic obscenity justifies physical violence. The distinction is simple: political attacks with words or ideas may be lewd, offensive, even immoral, but they are not "violent." Whatever a political opponent says, writes, or does (short of physically assaulting someone else), his or her person must be treated as sacrosanct. No invasion of someone's personal space as innocuous as a "glitter bombing" should be lauded or deemed acceptable. In politics as in kindergarten rule #1 must be "keep your hands to yourself."

Repudiating violence means abjuring violent rhetoric. Wishing harm on others may not be as bad as inflicting it, but it keeps the wheel of accelerating tension spinning and contributes to the already catastrophic disintegration of public trust. We may wish our political opponents electoral "annihilation," but not physical injury, much less "destruction." Even jokes, for example, wishing that the president suffer a heart attack exacerbate the climate of suspicion. God forbid something should happen to Donald Trump, there will be millions that refuse to accept he suffered anything but foul play.

Again, this is not about politeness or the tender feelings of the president's supporters. It is about the long-term survival of our institutions, and the short term political success of the opposition to Donald Trump and his enablers. Trump is a fundamentally anti-democratic figure. His political chances rise as the coherence and functionality of our institutions deteriorate. That is why he has sowed discord and animosity within the electorate from his first ride down the golden escalator. Trump thrives as democracy sickens, and violence is the death of democracy.

Some might object that an absolute repudiation of violence leaves Democrats vulnerable to Trump supporters who indulge in threats of "civil war." But such threats are just an extension of the kind of trolling that have become the hallmark of Trump's political brand. Certainly no one should feel the least afraid of such bluster. If Trump's supporters really express their love of the Dear Leader by attacking his opponents, we of course must and can defend ourselves.

But that is not Trump's real game. He talks and acts like a bully, but he is a shade more clever than the average schoolyard thug. Trump would like to see violence in the upcoming electoral cycle, as he welcomed it in 2016. But he would be most pleased by violence instigated by Democrats. He is so clearly corrupt and unscrupulous that his best chance is to discredit or morally compromise his opponents. He will thus try to provoke violence on the part of Democrats throughout the next year, and his provocations will become progressively more lurid and obscene as his political desperation grows. If Democrats can refuse the bait, they win. Those who spread and exemplify the message that violence is anathema thus can take pride in having fulfilled their civic duty and acted to save the Republic.

2)Stay Positive

Democracy thrives on optimism and dies in despair. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Trump consistently makes political gains by inducing an atmosphere of anxiety and insecurity. He knows full well that his supporters, however enthusiastic, comprise a minority of the electorate, thus his best hope is to demoralize and deter his political opponents.

This is why he consistently stokes outrage and indulges in gratuitous cruelty. His observation that he could "shoot someone on fifth avenue" without losing the loyalty of his supporters was more than simple vanity, it was the cornerstone of a political strategy. He understands that the unwavering support of his followers in the face of persistent mendacity and vitriol is profoundly disheartening for his political opposition. The ordinary rules of politics seem to have been suspended, and in some sense they have been. Those outside the Trump cult reflexively hope that the next outrage will finally erode Trump's support, and as his approval ratings remain buoyant through successive transgressions against decency and common sense, many become inclined to hopelessness and malaise. This is what Trump and his enablers are depending upon in 2020.

Luckily, such a strategy can be defeated through a simple technique: remain hopeful. This is not a paean to the power of "positive thinking." Thought of course is not enough. Speech and (especially) action are what count. Trump can only win (he only ever won in the first place) by making millions of people cynical and disillusioned- he only becomes sufficiently tolerable (even to his ardent supporters) by creating the impression that the whole world is almost as corrupt and benighted as he is.

Pointing out the obvious falsehood of that lie is simple. However much venality, vulgarity, and corruption there are in the world racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia remain wrong. Murdering journalists is evil, as is taking children away from their parents. Soliciting help from a foreign power to win an election is unpatriotic. Nazis are not fine people. Most of the American people understand these basic truths, and if we stand up for them on election day in November 2020, Donald Trump will be sent home to private life. Neither the fervent obtuseness of Trump's supporters nor the vehement disagreements among his opponents can change that fact. Spreading the news, through word and deed, that Trump can be defeated will make it so, for the simple reason that it is true, and Trump's only hope lies in making people forget it.

Repudiate violence. Stay positive. If you fulfill these two tasks, you may be sure that whatever else you do will produce progress. Contribute to a political campaign. Volunteer to man phone banks or canvas neighborhoods. Raise consciousness about climate change. Rally against discriminatory immigration policies. Fight for better health care or against gun violence. Campaign against student debt. Whether you do all of these things or only one, what will make them land with positive effect are priorities #1 and 2. If we repudiate violence and stay positive, in the long run we (that is to say, the American people) will win.  

There Are Only Two Ways that this Ends

Watching or reading the breathless coverage of the impeachment inquiry playing out in the House of Representatives, one would be forgiven for imagining that it is a drama pulsating with suspense. Will the House impeach? Will the Senate convict? Tune in tomorrow for our next exciting chapter. While both questions obviously spring to mind spontaneously, their answers are almost as spontaneously obvious: Yes, and No.

With regard to the first "Yes," Donald Trump has confessed to impeachable offenses on live television.  Even if the president had not tried to coerce his Ukrainian counterpart (which he clearly did- the famous "quid pro quo" implicit in the phrase "do us a favor"), the use of his Article II powers as chief diplomat to seek help from a foreign government  against a domestic political opponent is a textbook abuse of power. Add to this his transgression of Congressional authority, his resort to bribery, and a myriad other offenses, and anyone who has the least understanding of our constitutional order knows that the House must and will pass a Bill of Impeachment.  A failure to impeach would be a gross dereliction of duty at this juncture, and arguments to the contrary by figures such as Louis Gohmert or Devin Nunes are rooted in grotesque fantasies.

But to expect this impeachment to result in Trump's removal from office would be to indulge in a fantasy just as absurd. The president still enjoys upwards of 80% approval among Republican voters in most polls. He has the power to "primary out" any Republican lawmaker that breaks ranks with him on any question, much less that of his own impeachment. Trump proved this in the case of Mark Sanford, ex-governor of South Carolina, who lost his House seat merely for suggesting that the president should be more polite. Under those conditions, expecting the 20 Republican senators that would have to vote with the Democrats in order for Trump to be removed from office to do so is wishful thinking of a delusional degree.

So if Trump must be impeached by the House but he will not be removed by the Senate, then how does this end?  To arrive at the correct range of possible answers, one must first understand that the impeachment of Donald Trump will not end in the Senate. The impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is a deliberation over Trump's fitness for office. The arguments will be laid out for and against, and they (unfortunately, given the realities of the situation) will be voted on twice: the first time by the Senate, the second time by the electorate at large, in November of 2020. The final outcome of Donald J. Trump's impeachment hinges upon this second vote.

If the electorate deems the president fit to serve despite all of his abuses of power, then we will enter a new phase of our history as a nation. The president is already willing to use his office in the unrestrained pursuit of his own personal political (and financial) interests, even though he knows he is subject to the sanction of the voters in 2020. If he passes that threshold unscathed, he will feel even more liberated and immune to the consequences of official corruption. By the middle of his second term he will be so far on the wrong side of the law that, were the courts and Congress working according to anything that resembles our regular constitutional order,  he would be subject to prosecution as soon as he left office. He will thus have to either find some way to remain president for life or undermine the normal operation of our institutions to protect himself and his family. What that would look like or how it would function could take on a number of forms (for example, disenfranchising voters of color by various means so as to guarantee that his successor would be a cat's paw), but one could be sure that it would entail the end of the Republic as we know it.

Alternatively, the impeachment of Donald Trump could result in his removal from office, only belatedly. If voters send Trump home in 2020, along with several of the Republican senators that voted for his acquittal, the constitutional order will have (eventually) operated as it was originally designed. Whether the administration that replaces Trump's will enjoy more success in managing policy, foreign and domestic, is an open question. But at least such a transition would guarantee the Republic in the abstract a new lease on life.

We have lived through periods like this before: when large groups of Americans gave their support to movements like the KKK or McCarthyism. The voters who are supporting Trump are expressing a similar willingness to trade away constitutional safeguards in pursuit of what they perceive to be urgent political ends (curtailing immigration, banning abortion, cutting taxes, etc.). The previous movements that presaged Trumpism failed, and the constitutional order persisted. But none of those earlier movements had managed to capture the White House.

The stakes of Trump's impeachment are thus very high. If Trump is not ultimately removed from office his subversion of the constitution will be made permanent, and the American experiment in democracy will effectively end. But that outcome does not hinge on what happens in the Senate. It will be decided, once and for all, at the ballot box in November of 2020.

Reading the Democrats

Takeaway from the Democratic Debate:

1)Warren remains the strongest candidate to beat Trump. She has energy, smarts, a clear message and a strong program. She is a living embodiment of what I think of as the Doug Jones principle. Jones got African-American voters (particularly African-American women) to come out and give him a win in Alabama because his life story gave them confidence that he would serve their interests. He had taken political and personal risks in prosecuting the white supremacist terrorists that had murdered young girls in Birmingham. Past actions are the best predictors of future behavior- voters are always looking in a candidate's life story for some sign that this person will fulfill some of the promises that all candidates make to "stand for voters like you." Workers in the industrial Midwest will look at Warren's record fighting against corporate and financial interests and believe that she is on their side. That is precisely the constituency that will make up the deficit that lost Hillary the election in 2016. Forget about Warren's gender- workers aren't that stupid. At least, the ones who are that stupid are going to vote for Trump whomever the Dems nominate, so it makes sense to nominate someone that will appeal to the workers that are reachable.

2)The strongest ticket is a Warren-Harris or Warren-Klobuchar ticket. Putting two women on the ticket will generate "controversy" that will help the Dems draw some media focus away from the constant circus surrounding Trump. But there are lots of strong combinations in the current field. Klobuchar-Harris, Klobuchar-Buttigieg, Klobuchar-Booker, Booker-Buttigieg, yada yada yada.

3)Any Democrat that runs a strong campaign can beat Trump. That said, the two most vulnerable are Sanders and Biden. Sanders has too much baggage from his past- his public image is much too easy to reshape. Maybe I am overestimating the gullibility of the electorate, but if the swift boating of John Kerry is any gauge, the footage of Sanders hugging Castro, trash-talking Israel, etc. is going to sink him if he ever gets the nomination.

4)Biden is a potential train wreck. I love Joe, I was charmed when he had the "no, you're not Putin" moment with Sanders last night, I liked that he called BS on Gabbard's "regime change war." But in his best days he was a semi-articulate gaffe machine, and his best days are long past. He will allow Trump to run EXACTLY the kind of campaign the Troll-in-Chief likes- full of puerile insults and trash talk about verbal flubs. It will be "I voted for the money before I voted against it" X10. He could still pull it off, but only if a)He recovers something that looks a little better than his old "A game"; b)He has a young, dynamic, female running mate (calling VP Klobuchar, Abrams, or Harris).

5)Tulsi Gabbard is a GOP/Russian mole, or might as well be. Almost every word out of her mouth helped Troll last night. The "regime change war" that she kept repeating was the worst but not the only example. "Regime change war"? Iraq yes, Syria- NO! We did not start the Syrian civil war- it began as an authentic grass-roots movement against the Assad regime, which militarized only AFTER Assad's government responded with deadly force to the protests of its own citizens. Calling it a "regime change war" (i.e. implying that the Syrian people rose up against Assad only because we the USA put them up to it) is to parrot Assad regime/Russian propaganda. Gabbard obviously went into that debate determined to throw the apple of discord among her fellow Democrats and bring the whole show down. Whether she was doing it out of her own conviction or at someone else's behest (hello Donald? Vlad? Mr. Koch?) is anybody's guess.

As Hong Kong Goes, So Goes China...and the World

The news that a protester in Hong Kong was shot today during protests set to coincide with the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China bodes ill for a positive resolution to the crisis that has roiled the city in recent months. Observers around the world should be concerned. Though the government in Beijing portrays the conflict as a domestic affair with only local ramifications, the stakes in Hong Kong are very high for the people of all of China and, by extension, the entire world.

The most obvious indication that this is true is the extraordinary forbearance that Beijing has exercised in its response to the Hong Kong protesters. One need only look at how the Chinese government has responded to protests in Xinjiang and Tibet to know that its policy in Hong Kong falls far outside of the norm. This is not meant to credit Beijing with special virtue in the current case. Rather, it is a sign that Xi Jinping and his government recognize the need to tread carefully in Hong Kong. The behavior of both sides in this crisis, in fact, is conditioned by the same overarching reality: Hong Kong has been both an asset and a liability to the Chinese Communist Party since the former British colony was repatriated to China in 1997.

Hong Kong has been a key asset to the PRC in economic terms. Since the early 20th century, Hong Kong has been one of the freest and most stable capital markets in the world, making it a key financial center for all of East Asia. Billions of investment dollars flow through Hong Kong each year, and the Hong Kong economy itself is a major generator of commercial and industrial wealth. In 1997, Hong Kong's economy made up 17% of the Gross Domestic Product of the entire People's Republic of China, despite the fact that Hong Kong's 6 million people made up only .5% of the PRC's population. Beyond this, because back then the Chinese Renminbi could not be used in international commerce, Hong Kong's financial markets were a key source of vital "hard currency" for the PRC fisc.

It is for this reason that Beijing initially agreed to the "one country, two systems" principle that it set as the terms for Hong Kong being re-integrated into Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Chinese Communist leaders recognized that any attempt to institute new economic and political controls in Hong Kong would injure the fragile financial ecosystem that made the city such a dynamic center of investment and trade. A desire to refrain from "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" has restrained Beijing from meddling aggressively in the internal affairs of Hong Kong.

But though this made Hong Kong a vital economic asset, it also made the city a dangerous political liability. Allowing the city to self-regulate meant assenting to its citizens having freedoms of expression, religious participation, and social association that are enjoyed nowhere else in China.  For example, where the Tiananmen Square democracy movement of 1989 is a taboo subject the mention of which is severely punished in mainland China, in Hong Kong the event is still memorialized by candlelight vigils every year on the June 4 anniversary of the massacre that killed thousands of protesters at the orders of Beijing's leaders. As travel and trade between Hong Kong and mainland China become more frequent and as mainland citizens become exposed to more print, broadcast, and digital media coming out of Hong Kong, the freedoms of expression enjoyed in Hong Kong become an increasingly worrisome source of resentment and potential unrest for Chinese Communist leaders in Beijing.

Thus, though for twenty years Beijing has wanted to conserve the material benefits of Hong Kong's unique economy, it has simultaneously desired to bring Hong Kong's unruly political discourse into line with that of the larger PRC. Moreover, as China's economy has grown relative to that of Hong Kong, the economic constraints on Beijing's actions have grown weaker, and correspondingly its perception of the relative urgency of the political liabilities posed by Hong Kong has intensified. Right now the percentage share  of Hong Kong's GDP has shrunk to  1.5 % that of the entire People's Republic of China. This still makes Hong Kong a very wealthy city relative to its population, but it no longer occupies the dominant position it once did in the Chinese economy as a whole.

It is perhaps for this reason more than any other that the Chinese Communist Party has moved, incrementally but persistently in recent years, to exert progressively greater control over Hong Kong society and political culture. The new extradition law that Beijing tried to impose upon Hong Kong in March, which would have given PRC authorities the power to extradite residents to mainland China for a host of activities that had never previously been criminal offenses in Hong Kong, was the latest in a series of measures aimed at extending Beijing's power and curtailing Hong Kong's autonomy. The explosive response to these incursions (some protest have drawn almost one third of Hong Kong's 7.4 million residents into the street) was driven, in part, by a recognition that Hong Kong's economic clout is waning relative to that of the larger PRC. The current moment may be the last in which Beijing will be more motivated to preserve Hong Kong's wealth and productivity (a motive that has been enhanced by the threat of Donald Trump's trade war to China's overall GDP) than it is to clamp down on dangerous political dissent. The protesters have thus taken enormous risks in what they perceive (most likely correctly) as a last, "do-or-die" effort to secure permanent guarantees of Hong Kong's relative freedom and autonomy.

Though the Hong Kong protesters are no doubt chiefly motivated by the interests of their community, their families, and themselves, Beijing is incorrect in representing this as a conflict with merely local consequences. What the protesters are fighting for in Hong Kong is not only better for Hong Kong, but for the people of China in general. Beijing has been trying to make Hong Kong more like the rest of China, but this overlooks the fact that the very prosperity which has emboldened PRC leaders to take a strong hand against Hong Kong has been fostered by making the rest of the PRC more like Hong Kong. In the years since 1980 the People's Republic has seen a miraculous surge in economic growth through the steady removal of restrictions on work, trade, expression, and communication. For that rising tide of prosperity to continue, the expanding trend of economic, cultural, and political liberalization must likewise progress.

If Beijing moves to violently repress the protests in Hong Kong, the effects will be severe and long-term. Much of the financial wealth in Hong Kong itself, which is underwritten by the city's importance as a finance hub, will disappear overnight. Moreover, without the confidence that Hong Kong and its institutions give international investors as an entry point for China's larger capital markets, much of the recent growth that mainland China has enjoyed will slow or reverse. Finally, violent repression in Hong Kong will create a general climate of fear and pessimism that will infect the entire Chinese economy, crippling entrepreneurial initiative and dampening the confidence necessary for future growth.

We are at a crucial inflection point. The protesters in Hong Kong are lighting the way forward. If they can prevail, the foundations for sustained prosperity in China may be laid that could fully restore the central place China once occupied in the global economy. If the protests are put down, the resulting economic injury will reverse years of progress, creating a receding tide that will lower all boats, not merely in China but throughout East Asia and beyond that, the entire world.

Impeachment vs. Trumpism

The release this week of the formal texts of both the whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump and one of the White House's own memoranda outlining the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy necessitate a Bill of Impeachment against the president of the United States. Those who have or might criticize Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as being too precipitate in launching an impeachment inquiry are clearly in the wrong. If only the whistleblower's complaint (or the rumor of it) were public there might be some substance to the charge that the Democratic caucus is moving too fast or in biased fashion, but in the combination of the two documents we have both a list of very serious allegations against Donald Trump and evidence that he himself has provided to substantiate these charges. There is no doubt that Congress is bound by its Article I constitutional duties to review the president's fitness for office.

The fact that we must even pause to question whether this last statement is true underscores two of the most salient and potently corrosive aspects of the political movement that may be called "Trumpism." Much of Trumpism is deeply contingent and potentially ephemeral, rooted in the cult of personality around Trump himself or in cultural trends such as racism, both of which may wane naturally over time as conditions change.  But two aspects of Trumpism are firmly systemic, and are being progressively more ingrained into the culture and structure of our politics the longer Trump remains in office. Through his capture of the Republican party machinery and his ability to force elected Republican officials to align themselves with him on a day-by-day basis, he is institutionalizing new norms of political engagement that will be difficult to correct even if and when he should leave office, and which in and of themselves argue for the urgency of an impeachment process. Enumerated, these two principles of Trumpism are:

1) All politics are binary, and are zero sum

This principle flows from the foundation of Trumpism in racism and the cult of personality surrounding Trump himself. Trump's message that Latin@s, blacks, "uppity" women, and Muslims were the perpetrators of "American carnage" was appealing to millions of voters who were struggling economically, fearful of "others," and increasingly aware of demographic change.  His willingness to give full voice to those fears in defiance of current standards of decency and common courtesy made him appear courageous and resolute in the eyes of his followers.

A trend toward polarization in American society was already well underway before Trump took office, but the particular rhetoric ("build that wall!"; "send her back!") and policy pursuits (separation of migrant families, crowding of migrants into concentration camps along the southern border) of Trumpism has created a newly radical politics of bifurcation and animosity. The decision to take a child away from her parents, for example, admits to no gray areas: either one "understands" the righteousness of such an action or is taking a stand alongside an enemy so dangerous that they must be contained even in childhood. A person taking such a stand, even if they are a fellow US citizen, must be dangerously deluded. Anyone who cannot see Donald Trump's wisdom and virtue in pursuing his policy is likewise crippled by bias. There can be no "loyal opposition" under such circumstances. Opposition is necessarily treason.We can see this principle at work in the Republican response to the imminent impeachment of Donald Trump.

By contrast to this article of Trumpist faith, the existence of and the necessity to operate with some degree of deference to the perceptions and expectations of the loyal opposition is foundational to any functional democracy. If one proceeds from the assumption that 1)power will be given to the people; and 2)the people will not always agree; then the maintenance of at least some trust between factions in and out of power is essential. What President Trump has admitted to doing in the case of Ukraine is an impeachable offense because it flies in the face of this basic requirement of democratic governance.  He has shattered any chance for trust between his administration and the political opposition.

Why is this so? Firstly, one must understand that in any democracy suspicion of one's political opponents, especially those that hold power, is entirely natural and expected. Every president in US history, from George Washington on, has been subject to intense scrutiny and (sometimes paranoid) suspicion. It is incumbent upon all presidents to operate in a way that constrains suspicion and fosters trust.

This makes foreign policy an especially sensitive area. Foreign governments and citizens come under none of the obligations of elected officials here in the US, their probity and judgment will never be held directly accountable to the voters of the US. Foreign affairs thus provides all US officials, but especially the president (whose special purview is setting foreign policy) with an opportunity to "end run" the restraints of normal domestic politics. Foreign governments are free to attack US citizens (if given permission and the right incentives) with none of the consequences that might be suffered by an official here in the US (or that they might suffer if they aimed the same attack at one of their own citizens).

Enlisting a foreign government to attack one's own political opponents is thus a total abrogation of the duties of the presidency, as it is a complete abandonment of any pretense that the suspicions of the loyal opposition must be respected. It is analogous to bringing a revolver into a boxing ring. No one who saw their opponent waving a pistol at them could possibly expect that the rules of boxing would be respected. By the same logic, no one who sees what Donald Trump himself has admitted to can doubt that the rules of democracy have been abandoned.

If Donald Trump had used domestic channels to press this case against Biden (spreading the story through the press, referring it to his AG for investigation) he would no doubt have come under criticism, but virtually no one would have contemplated impeachment on that account. Outsourcing the smearing of Joe Biden to the government of the Ukraine (irrespective of the truth of any allegations against Biden) is the politics of autocracy. By displacing the scrutiny of Biden into an arena in which he has massive influence (through his control of aid money to Ukraine) and US voters have none, Trump is exercising the prerogatives of a dictator and abandoning the duties of a president.

In the response of Republican politicians to the charges against Trump we can see just how perilously Trumpism eats away at the basic tenets of democracy. Dismissals of the case for impeachment take two basic various forms. Some arguments focus on the substance of the allegations against Joe Biden, or the asserted equivalency between what Trump did and what Biden and/or other Democrats have done. Other arguments seize upon technicalities, such as whether Trump ever offered his Ukrainian president an explicit quid pro quo. None of these arguments acknowledge the fact that from the standpoint of our constitutional order, what Trump did was acutely wrong in absolute and essential terms. The Democrats having done similar things is a case of many wrongs not creating a right. A search for technical excuses is analogous to arguing that a car thief should be excused because they behaved traffic laws very scrupulously.

In the final analysis, all of the Republican defenses of Trump boil down to an embrace of this central tenet of Trumpism: the president does not have to respect and maintain the trust of the loyal opposition because there is no such animal. The government does not contain two parties that disagree vehemently on many key issues but that are united in the service of a common national interest. Rather, it contains two factions, the one aligned with Trump being right, the other being wrong, only one of which may win. Under those circumstances opposition is necessarily treason, thus the aspect of democratic governance that compels Trump's impeachment is negated, and those calling for impeachment become doubly treasonous.


2)Institutions are to be weaponized, and are disposable.

Our constitutional order rests on the principle that the functioning and survival of governing institutions is an end and a good unto itself. The institutions exist in a state of dynamic tension with the principles that they are intended to serve. The courts, for example, exist to pursue justice. But since the courts are staffed by fallible human beings, giving them unlimited power would subvert justice and ultimately destroy the courts themselves. They must thus be constrained by rules and protocols that limit their power and occasionally even inhibit their efficiency in the cause of justice, but which are essential to sustaining their viability in the long term.

The presidency is designed along the same lines, and Trump's actions regarding Ukraine violated this stricture and breached the basic parameters of his office. His solicitation of Ukraine's assistance in smearing Joe Biden was illegitimate on its face, but his determination to use Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to carry out this policy compounded the illegitimacy of his scheme. If Trump had used the State Department and the ambassadorial channel to make these overtures, he would still have been acting like a petty despot, but he would at least have been submitting his actions to official and public scrutiny. His choice to use his Attorney General (a radical subversion of the independence of the Justice Department) and personal lawyer expressed a determination to keep his actions out of the public eye and ensure that his powers could be used in the unimpeded pursuit of his own political interests.

Republicans' refusal to even acknowledge these breaches of constitutional regulation evince the high degree to which they have been corrupted by Trumpism's radical debasement of the value and austerity of our institutions. No institution is worth preserving for its own sake in Trump's world. Everything is about the zero sum contest in which Trump himself is constantly engaged, thus the organs of government are never simply working, they are either "winning" or "losing" on his behalf. Since "winning" is the only acceptable option (the stakes being "winner take all"), any and all means necessary to that end must be employed, even if they entail the subversion or even the destruction of the institution being employed.

This can be seen in the frequency with which Trump is willing to impeach the integrity and the basic governing competence of key institutions: the Federal Reserve, the Attorney General's Office, FBI, the CIA, the Directorate of National Intelligence, etc. Any office that, in the current moment, is working against Trump's perceived interests is condemned as irredeemably corrupt, ineffective, or illegitimate. Republican officials who are determined to remain aligned with the White House are compelled to assent to his views, and throw offices and officials under the bus without regard to any factor but their degree of loyalty to Trump.

This orientation, of course, flows from the same dimensions of Trumpism that negate the legitimacy of any loyal political opposition. Since Trump is "our" champion against an ultimately menacing enemy, the value of any institution at any given moment can only and ever be assessed by reference to the ongoing battle. If "we" lose, the continued existence of the CIA or the Justice Department will not matter in the slightest, thus the rules by which these institutions operate may be bent to any degree, up to and beyond the point that the institutions themselves are destroyed, so long as the final victory is secured.

In the final analysis, the need to impeach Trump flows from the inevitable consequences of Trumpism's influence. The logic of Trumpism can only lead to one of two ends, both of which entail the end of democracy. The first is autocracy and single-party rule. One can only maintain the pretense of a "winner takes all" contest so long before the winner must, finally, take all. Thus constitutional government will eventually be discarded (through mechanisms such as voter suppression and abuse of presidential power) as the GOP is forced to bring the practical operation of government into line with the logic of its ideology. Failing that, even if the Democrats do take the White House once more, unless the hold of Trumpism on the GOP is broken, governance will be impossible. A political field in which the behavior and rhetoric of Donald Trump and those assisting him has been normalized will preclude the pursuit of any policy goals by constitutional means. None of the basic negotiations of democracy can be carried out in a world where total victory is the only legitimate goal and the assumption of good faith on the part of one's opponent is treason. One way or another, as Trumpism thrives the Republic as it was originally designed must fall.

Impeaching Trump is thus not a matter of principle, but an existential imperative. Passing a Bill of Impeachment will almost certainly fail to result in the president's removal from office. Once impeachment is initiated, Trump will be tried in the Senate, and can only be removed by a 2/3 vote of that body. For that threshold to be reached, 20 Republican senators would have to cross party lines. Given the hold that Trump has on the Republican electorate, it is very unlikely that so many senators will exhibit such a high degree of political courage.

But even if an impeachment effort is destined to fail, it is a first indispensable step to countering the toxic influence of Trumpism on our national politics. Trump and his supporters must be held to account institutionally. Let Republican senators vote in defiance of the constitution, and then let them explain to the voters the "logic" behind their actions. If the GOP can be made to pay a political cost for its ideological errors, there is a chance that our national discourse can be steered away from the cliff over which it is poised to tumble.

Even if there is a chance that the GOP will retain congressional control in the wake (or as a result) of an impeachment fight, that does not argue against the wisdom of impeachment. Any election that the Democrats win because, in this moment and under the current conditions, they refrain from impeaching the president, would be a resounding victory for Trumpism. Such an outcome would be a defeat for democracy, and thus ultimately a defeat for all Americans, whatever their party affiliation. If our Republic is to have a chance, someone must fight for the principle that everything is not reducible to politics, that some dimensions of our constitutional order transcend partisan concerns. If no one will defend this proposition then, even if Trump himself is defeated, Trumpism wins.

The Biden Problem

Because I tuned in late and initially caught only the last half of Thursday night's Democratic debate, I was very surprised hear pundits in its immediate aftermath describe Joe Biden's performance as "strong." I had been shocked at how disastrously Biden answered questions toward the end of the evening, particularly this question posed by Linsey Davis:

Mr. Vice President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country? 

 To call Biden's answer to this question "incoherent" would be charitable. He rambled out some suggestions about early childhood intervention that were vague to the point of being cryptic, managing finally only to imply that African-American parents do not know how to raise their own children (readers may examine the full transcript under the link above and judge for themselves). At the very least the moment was an alarming indication of Biden's campaign stamina- if he folds that completely at the end of several hours on stage with fellow Democrats, what will happen over weeks and months exchanging body-blows with Donald Trump? But apart from the question of endurance, the exchange between Biden and Davis pointed to a more fundamental problem that will weaken any prospective Biden bid to defeat Trump.

I am not trying to imply here that Biden is a "racist." The problem is not that simple. Democrats are attracted to Joe Biden because, whatever subconscious biases or prejudices he (like the rest of us) may have, he is manifestly a man of depth, integrity, and humanity. His obvious dedication and loyalty to friends, family, community and nation is remarkable. His capacity to form profound and enduring friendships with political opponents and his courageous endurance in the face of personal tragedy are nothing short of inspirational. But his more than forty years of public life has left a record of policies and pronouncements (like the one quoted by Davis) that are out of step with current perceptions and values.

To be sure, statements like the one quoted by Davis say as much or more about the history of American society and politics as they do about the current state of Joe Biden's character. But the problem is not that Biden's past remarks reveal flaws or prejudices. The problem is with the way they will be used by the Trump campaign.

To understand why this is so one has to be clear about the political dynamics of a national election. Democrats who favor a Biden candidacy assume that presidential contests are driven largely by identity politics. Biden is, in this view, a strong candidate to face Trump because Biden neutralizes Trump's chief advantages: those who chose Trump over Hillary because he is a white man will no longer be so motivated.

But this assessment radically overestimates the importance of raw identity politics in a national contest. Such forces are powerful, yes, but identity is not destiny. Barack Obama, for example, did not win the presidency because he is African-American. His identity no doubt attracted many voters and increased turnout in many communities. But his victories (especially his re-election in the campaign against Mitt Romney) were as much a product of what he had to say about race as the mere fact of his racial identity.

Obama was the first candidate in more than twenty-five years to win the presidency with a clear majority of the popular vote, in part, because he talked about the problems of race in a way that was more candid and incisive than virtually any candidate before him. Many examples could be cited, but the most obvious was his speech about his one-time pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.  By acknowledging his debt to Wright even as he repudiated many of Wright's prejudices, Obama cast the problem and tragedy of race and racism in terms that most Americans could understand.

It is a measure of just how fraught the issue is that Obama never perfectly satisfied pundits on any side of the political spectrum in this regard. The outraged Republican response was perhaps predictable, but even from the left he was persistently criticized for being overly moderate and conciliatory. From the perspective of the public at large, however, Obama could be seen by most voters as someone who was earnestly grappling with the legacy of racism, even if only imperfectly. Right or wrong, Obama had put himself forward on this issue and taken political risks. His implicit message was widely appealing: "Racism is wrong, we most oppose it, but it is complicated." A vote for Obama could thus be cast as one to do something about racial injustice, even if it was never entirely clear what that something should be. The urgency of this issue in the minds of a large portion of the electorate helped deliver Obama a majority.

Unfortunately for Democrats, not all of the dynamics entailed in the issue of race cut in their favor. Strident opposition to Obama was partly rooted in simple racism, but some of the forces that Obama unleashed in the development of his own political brand contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. Obama's candor on the issue of race engendered a strongly negative reaction in some white voters. They did not see a man grappling earnestly with the complex legacy of racism, but a hypocrite dealing in double-standards (this reaction is perhaps itself a product of bias, but one less overtly and consciously malicious than outright racism). Much of Donald Trump's hardest core of support derives from Trump's skill in giving voice to and channeling this resentment.

This is where Joe Biden is most vulnerable in any attempt to unseat Donald Trump. Trump, if matched against Biden, will no doubt pursue the same strategy that succeeded in securing him a narrowly technical electoral college victory against Hillary Clinton. A perfect storm of factors helped Trump in this feat, most of which (Russian interference, the Comey letter, the Clinton camp's own missteps) were not the product of his campaign's devising. But one proactive message that Trump's people broadcast with real effect was that of Hillary's supposed equivalency to Trump. Yes, so this story went, Trump is venal and corrupt, but so is Hillary. Yes, Trump lies. But so does Hillary. Since morally they are the same in all the ways that matter, voters should feel free in choosing the candidate that they prefer politically.

Surely many (if not most) voters  did not buy this yarn. It is difficult to know how many believed it, because their numbers are almost certainly not to be found in the tally of those who voted. Anyone who cared enough about the race to cast a vote in favor of either candidate probably would not have had their opinion changed by this kind of transparent ploy. But enough Democratic voters were demoralized by the idea that "a vote against Trump doesn't really matter that much" to give Trump a 77,000 vote margin of victory in three states.

This exact message will not work in a campaign against Joe Biden- no one will ever believe that Biden is the moral equivalent of Trump (Why Biden is not vulnerable in this way when Hillary was is a question that is too complicated to address here. Suffice it to say that some of it had to do with empirical facts, some of it had to do with larger forces such as gender). But Trump will be able to run an "equivalency con" on Biden with regard to race. "However bad Trump's statements on race may be (so this line of attack will go), Joe Biden has said things almost as bad. Democratic support of Biden over Trump is thus hypocrisy of a kind with Barack Obama's friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Democrats will forgive racism in those who agree with them, but use it to bludgeon those with whom they disagree."

It is precisely because race and racism remain such a highly charged and urgent issue in the minds of voters across the political spectrum that this tactic will have broad and deep effect, even more than the equivalency campaign waged against Hillary Clinton. Anyone who doubts this can take warning from the commentary of Anand Giridharadas, which helped inspire me to write this post. During the debate, for example, he tweeted:

Joe Biden's answer on how to address the legacy of slavery was appalling -- and disqualifying. It ended in a sermon implying that black parents don't know how to raise their own children. This cannot go on.

 Democrats may disagree about whether Biden's answer was "disqualifying" (or whether, as Giridharadas asserted later in that thread, "this...[is]...one of the most explicitly racist moments of all time in a Democratic primary debate"). But they must all realize and should take note, that if Joe Biden is the nominee, this type of angry commentary is likely to follow him through the entire general election campaign.

This will not be because Democrats lack unity in their opposition to Donald Trump. Indeed, if forced to bet good money on such a contingency, I would wager virtually any sum that Anand Giridharadas had voted "Biden" in a Biden-Trump contest. Why then, can we count on pundits like Giridharadas to continue to comment in this vein? Do they not understand how much this will help Trump wage an "equivalency campaign"? Do they really think that Biden is as racist as Trump?

Those asking such questions do not understand that what really matters is not what is going on privately in the spaces of a politician's mind, but what he or she can be taken to stand for in the public square. Barack Obama was determined and able, through moments like the Jeremiah Wright speech, to skillfully establish himself as a politician  willing to publicly tackle the complex issues of race with nuance and candor. Though this did attract much heated opposition, on balance it garnered him enough support to carry him to two outstanding electoral victories.

Trump, by contrast, squeaked into the Oval Office by making himself the unreconstructed icon of white resentment. This is the key to his most diehard support and the fuel of his most vehement opposition. Anyone who hopes to defeat Trump will have to maximize the liabilities that Trump's stance on race saddles him with and minimize the positive assets that he derives from his racist rhetoric.

In this regard, Joe Biden starts from a position of real disadvantage, and seems inclined to make his position worse. Whatever one believes about the contents of Biden's heart and mind, there can be little doubt that commentators like Giridharadas are right about the catastrophic inadequacy of his answer during Thursday's debate. The very incoherence of his response suggests that he does not understand or will not give sufficient credence to the particular urgency of this issue to his campaign. If he knew how important it was to get this kind of answer right, he could never get caught so flat-footed. But beyond the flaws of style and clarity, what actual content can be gleaned from Biden's answer is at best out of touch, at worst outright offensive.

However correct Democrats at large may be in their belief that Donald Trump must be defeated at all costs, it is not fair or realistic to expect public intellectuals like Anand Giridharadas that have dedicated their lives to struggling with questions of race to carry water for Joe Biden. The issue is much too complicated in its practical dimensions and much too important in essential terms. Some pundits may "pull their punches" in deference to practical realities, but if Biden performs through the general election campaign as he did on Thursday night, he will attract great volumes of scathing criticism, much of it from commentators who would otherwise be Democratic supporters. This will lend credence to a campaign to smear Biden as "almost as racist as Trump."

Will enough voters be swayed by such a campaign to give Trump another "hail Mary" win? It is difficult to say. Ironically, the rank-and-file voters least likely to be convinced by such tactics will most probably be African-Americans. Biden earned a great fund of affection and support among many African-American voters for being such a loyal and obviously supportive member of Barack Obama's administration. But politics is won at the margins, and Biden's vulnerability on race is bound to demoralize some Democratic voters, especially if he continues to perform as badly in this regard as he did Thursday night. Democratic primary voters attracted to Joe Biden for his purported "electability" should give some thought to this problem.

The Right Voted Wolf

In the wake of the 2016 election there was a great deal of writing from the conservative commentariat about the the blame that the political left bore for the rise and election of Donald Trump. According to this story line, the left had "cried wolf" too many times. Liberal activists and pundits had exaggerated the prevalence of racism, elitism, and sexism in American politics and society. They had gratuitously overestimated the power of corporate money and the hold of the military-industrial complex, and made a caricature of the supposed "anti-democratic" forces in the Republican Party. All of this stridency, smugness, and outright fabrication had produced a reaction, which took the form of Trumpism.

Whatever the merit of such a narrative in the days leading up to and just after January 20, 2017, it swiftly began to lose coherence in the aftermath of Donald Trump's inauguration and has long since deteriorated to farce. However strident the warnings from the left before November 2016 may have been, they did not nearly approximate the utter freak show that has unfolded under the aegis of the Trump White House. I defy anyone to find a pundit as far left as Bernie Sanders who issued a warning during the 2016 campaign that seems irrationally alarmist in light of our current political moment.

The President of the United States spends his time tweeting about Chrissy Teigen and week-old weather maps. He uses the Oval Office as a platform to advertise his country clubs. He cites the hurt feelings of the North Korean dictator as a reason for firing his third National Security Advisor. This is a partial list of absurdities from the last 72 hours or so, and it makes no mention of the outright racism, sexism, and gratuitous cruelty that has been the hallmark of both politics and policy under this president for more than two years. Calling the current situation an "embarrassment" or a "disgrace" is an understatement to make someone crying "wolf" at the sight of a chihuahua look honest. Anyone who looks at the White House and continues to tell pollsters that they approve of the president simply does not understand what the executive branch is or the role it plays in our government.

The latest story line from conservative pundits concerns the state of the Democratic primary race. The nation is endangered, so we are to believe, because Democrats are flirting with policies that are far too left wing. All one can say to such musings is, "Now who is crying wolf?" The idea that any of the current field of Democratic candidates would be more dangerous to the welfare of the nation than Donald Trump is ludicrous.

Moreover, the notion that overly "left wing" candidates will drive people to vote for Donald Trump is likewise absurd. Someone who would vote for Donald Trump after seeing him in action as POTUS all this time cannot possibly be trusted to make any kind of coherent or objective assessment of any candidate, left or right; bed, broomstick or candle.  A voter who can be made to believe that Donald Trump is fit for office can be made to believe anything about anyone. Once the professional spinsters hired by the president and his billionaire cronies have done their work, Trump voters will understand that, but for having less facial hair, Joe Biden is basically indistinguishable from Che Guevara.

If pundits and activists on the left cried wolf before 2016, they can only be chided for minimizing the dangers that lay ahead. We would be considerably better off if the Republican Party had let a wolf loose in the Oval Office rather than Donald Trump. As Democratic voters watch the debates tonight, they may thus forget any and all rhetoric about the relative "electability" of one candidate or another. The simple truth is that any voter for whom Donald Trump is remotely "electable" is irredeemably lost to any and all Democratic candidates. Democrats may therefore ignore those crying wolf from the right as they assess the relative merits of the candidates seeking the nomination of the Party of FDR.

Trump and the Jews

An old friend and colleague sent me a recent article by David Frum, published in The Atlantic, in which Frum asks, "What if they are not coming for the Jews this time?" Frum acknowledges that "[the] Trump presidency seethes with hostility toward many different minority and subordinated groups. But Jews have been elevated to a special protected category, exempt from the lines of attack deployed against Muslims, non-Norwegian immigrants, women Trump deems unattractive, and so on and on." His title alludes to the famous poem by Martin Niemöller, which castigates the moral failure of passivity in the face of injustice done to others, including (from Niemöller's perspective), the Jews.

Jews have ever since viewed this poem as both a warning and a calling. A warning, because it foretells that whenever the oppression of marginalized groups begins, the malignant bigotry will eventually seek out the Jews (as Frum quotes Chris Rock saying, "That train is never late!"). A calling, because knowing what it means to be on the receiving end of such oppression, Jews have a special responsibility to speak out when it is doled out to others.

The question Frum is effectively asking is, "If the warning is no longer in effect, will the calling hold?" He enumerates evidence to show that Trump has repudiated antisemitism and that his movement accords Jews "insider" status. If this is the case, he wonders, what will Jews do in the face of the moral test the situation poses? If Jews are not in the way of the train this time, will they come to the aid of those who are?

Frum's exercise is (at least in some part) rhetorical, and the challenge he poses philosophically abstract. He is speaking to individual Jews as much to the "Jewish community" writ large, and laying the situation out as a moral conundrum understood in logical terms. As a thought experiment I cannot fault his message. I take his meaning (which is ever implicit rather than explicitly stated in his essay) to be that Jews do, individually and collectively, have a duty imposed by history to stand with those who are being victimized, a duty that will be abrogated if we give our support to Trump's bigotry. In this his formulations are unmistakably persuasive.

But as a matter of political pragmatics, the situation is more complicated than Frum's philosophical abstractions allow. By this I do not mean to begin an apology for Jewish Trump supporters. Trump's support among Jews is equivalent to what has been enjoyed by past Republican presidents. Jews as a group typically skew Democratic, but there has always been a "conservative wing" of the American Jewish community that votes for and donates to the Republican party, representing as many as 30% of American Jews. David Frum himself was, until recently, a member of this group.

Indeed, it is really to his former co-partisans that Frum is speaking. Trump has won the support of conservative Jews through traditional inducements. His tax cuts and deregulation are perennially appealing to fiscal conservatives, and his (largely symbolic but nonetheless ostentatious) acts of support for Israel are radically gratifying to traditional Jewish "defense conservatives". Frum is pleading with conservative Jews that, under Trump, these benefits come at a steep moral cost. To be sure, the appeal to history may be somewhat tendentious. Is it really fair to expect individual Jews to come under a greater moral onus than anyone else to stand with the oppressed, simply because other Jews were oppressed in the past? That kind of argument could be critiqued as "identitarian" and as imposing a double standard.

But Frum is right that the moral hazard is real, and entails practical detriments, even from the perspective of conservative Jews themselves. The issue about which defense Jewish conservatives care most dearly- the security of Israel- hinges on a moral argument that is undermined by Trumpist bigotry. Zionism is founded on the proposition that the world owes the Jews special protection against malignant racism. If conservative Jews, not merely as individuals but as representatives of Jewish religious and civil institutions, lend their support to Trump's politics of white nationalist grievance, how can the special plea at the heart of Zionist messaging fail to lose moral force?

Moreover, the hypothetical posed by Frum's title is almost certainly false. Chris Rock may not be completely right in this case: the train has been delayed. But no Jews; liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican; should be in any doubt, if it gets far enough the Trump train will come for us eventually. Trump's alliance with the Jews at the current moment is (like all of his relationships) one of convenience. He draws legitimacy and support from the friendship of figures like Sheldon Adelson and Benjamin Netanyahu, not only with Jews but with American evangelical Christians, among whom "Christian Zionism" is a powerful movement. Even Trump's most racist supporters, such as the self-avowed "white nationalist" Richard Spencer, profess a kind of twisted "Zionism." For Spencer's ilk, Israel presents a model of a mono-ethnic state, and stands as a convenient repository for Jews pending a final solution. Jews should never confuse gestures of friendship toward Israel with signs of tolerance or "philosemitism." The two are quite distinct.

The kind of legitimacy that Trump garners from his support of Israel and the friendship of prominent Jewish leaders are only useful to him while America's democratic institutions remain effective. As he leads the nation further down the path of white-nationalist oligarchy, association with Jews and Jewish interests will become progressively less useful to Trump and his administration. The culture of antisemitism among Trump's core supporters is very intense, as Frum himself acknowledges. If and when the MAGA community no longer needs to share power with those who  are not of like mind, support of Jews will become a liability for Trump rather than an asset. Anyone who does not believe that Trump will abandon the Jews at that point (even his daughter and her family, who could of course be deported to Israel) has not been paying attention to his behavior up to the present moment.

To my fellow Jews I say this: be warned. The train may be a bit late this time. But it is coming.

An Open Letter to President Donald Trump

Dear President Trump, 


          I was horrified to see you encouraging chants of "Send Her Back" at your rally in Greenville, North Carolina. This kind of nativist rhetoric echoes the vilest dogma of the political past. Whatever rationalizations you might offer for these expressions, there can be no doubt that they are intensely encouraging and exciting to the white nationalists and Neo-Nazis that inhabit the lunatic fringe of our politics.

          We have seen how this plays out before. On May 7, 2018 Jeff Sessions gave a speech announcing a "zero tolerance" policy at the border. Following that were family separations, tweets about "infestation" and MS-13, troops at the border...a steady series of escalations and incitements, driving white nationalists into a rising crescendo of manic excitement. On October 27, 2018 Robert Bowers walked into Tree of Life synagogue and killed 11 people, citing Jews' support for Latin@ migrants as his motive.

           When you came to console the congregants at Tree of Life you pleaded innocent of any intent to stoke hatred and violence. I cannot open a window into your heart, and thus I would concede that you must be given the benefit of the doubt on that score. But with your recent racist campaign of provocations and agitation, you are stirring the same passions and leading us down the path to the same end. You cannot claim ignorance of the consequences of your actions a second time.

           If you lead us to the point that tragedy strikes again, there can be no doubt that you share in the guilt. You may travel to the point where the needle you have set spinning comes to rest and play the mourner, but nothing will be able to dispel the stench of rank hypocrisy. No one can be consoled by that kind of "sympathy". As an American and a Jew I plead with you, stop! For the sake of your daughter, her husband, and their children, stop!

           This is a moral imperative that transcends politics. You are not simply stirring the tensions between "right" and "left," you are slashing at the very communal fabric that makes us human beings. If you do not desist, there will be mortal consequences, and you will not be able to reject any responsibility.


                                         Sincerely,


                                          Andrew Meyer

America Must Grow Up (Or Else...)

Donald Trump's greatest legacy may be having generated need for more words in the English lexicon than any other president. His recent comments (online and in real time) to the effect that Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib "should go back to the places that they come from" begs the use of epithets that do not quite yet exist. Trump's presidency had long ago become a "disgrace", but that word does not quite capture the toxicity and moral malignancy he embodies right now.

It is not just the president himself who has produced this profane miasma, but the cowardice, ignorance, or complicity of his supporters. The fact that anyone seriously entertains a debate about whether Trump's comments are racist is phantasmagorical. We have shown ourselves to be a nation of children, unworthy of the legacy of freedom and prosperity painstakingly built by our forebears.

It is long past time to grow up. Indeed, if we do not, the infantile hurricane of malice and nihilistic bigotry that centers on the West Wing will sweep away the foundations of the Republic. We have talked like children, thought like children, and reasoned like children. But we must put aside childish things, or be left with nothing at all.

Children persistently protest that their intentions exonerate them. "I didn't mean it!" Adults understand that meaning well does not absolve one of responsibility. Yet we continue to bicker about whether Trump's words are racist or not on some speculation about how he "really feels" in his heart.

Let me ask this of his defenders- WHO CARES? As a candidate (and still occasionally as POTUS) Trump routinely complained about the state of American government, culture, and society. He accused the former president of having spied on him without a shred of evidence. He impugned the competence, probity, and intelligence of lawmakers, judges, military leaders. None of that made him (in his own estimation, and that of his supporters) other than patriotic and loyal. But the criticisms of duly elected representatives who happen to be women of color makes them traitors and ingrates. What other conclusion can one draw except that white men possess rights and privileges in this nation that others do not? That is white supremacism in a nutshell.

The idea that Trump's supposed ignorance or the warm fuzzy feelings he might harbor for any individual or group is in any way relevant to ANYONE is ridiculous. It does not matter how many African-American friends Trump has or how many people of color serve in his cabinet. He has used the "bully pulpit" as a bullhorn for racism. He has broadcast that the leader of the free world deems people of color less American than whites, that they deserve fewer privileges, freedoms, and protections than whites. People in positions of responsibility and power (or those who want more responsibility and power, like the "alt-right" marchers in Charlottesville) have heard his message, and it will reverberate to the detriment of millions in ways big and small. You could only give a fig for what Trump feels or thinks "in his heart" if you are not in the path of this freight train.

 After more than two-hundred and forty years, our society seems yet incapable, in aggregate, of appreciating the ingenious logic and inherent fragility of the system in which we live such free and prosperous lives. Our Constitution distributes power through a complex of institutions and offices held in mutual tension with one-another, so as to prevent the tyranny of any one individual or group. But in order for this system to continue to function, the people inhabiting it must adhere to the rules that govern it, and that requires them to minimally respect the rights and dignity of one-another.

The situation might be compared to a game, the kind that helps children learn basic life lessons. As long as everyone respects the rules and treats one-another fairly, the game can continue to everyone's enjoyment. Though one or more players might temporarily gain an advantage by ignoring the rules or mistreating opponents, this will eventually cause the game to end, depriving everyone.

Comments like the ones Trump has been braying attracted less censure a century ago because people of color, women, and LGBTQ individuals were systematically barred from the "game" of politics. Long struggle and great sacrifice redressed that injustice. Now the game has expanded, and Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" is basically an exhortation to bring back that earlier exclusionary time- to narrow the game so that people of color, Muslims, women, and LGBTQ citizens need not be given the respect and deference of full participants.

But what Trump and his supporters do not realize is that this is not a call to change the game, but to end it. "Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrendered their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it." If the right of full participation can be taken away from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Ilhan Omar, or Rashida Tlaib, or Ayanna Pressley on the basis of race or origin, it can (and will, in the long run) be taken away from anyone else on equally arbitrary criteria. Once that levee has been breached, the flood will never be contained.

Among many other things, Trump is a perpetual child, and his leadership has infantilized us as a society. He is incapable of or refuses to learn the lesson at the heart of the game set in motion by our Founders.  Like the petulant whiner who, dissatisfied with the rigors of play, threatens to take his equipment and go home, he shows his contempt not only for our history and principles, but for us personally as individuals and a community. For the sake of ourselves and posterity, we had better grow up and recognize his bigotry for what it is.

Lessons of the Kaifeng Jews

      

 I had heard about the Kaifeng Jews before ever thinking to learn Chinese thirty years ago, and because I am Jewish, I have been asked by friends, family, and acquaintances about the Jews of Kaifeng ever since. The need to have ready answers quickly drove me to learn something about them. Sitting down to study them firsthand taught me that much of what I had been told (and that remains conventional wisdom) had been wrong.

            The standard line on the Kaifeng Jews goes like this:

            A group of Jews emigrated to imperial China during the Northern Song dynasty (960 C.E.-1127 C.E.), where they settled in the city of Kaifeng, which was then the capital. They built a synagogue and thrived for a time, but because they were not persecuted in China as they had been elsewhere, they quickly adopted Chinese culture. Eventually they lost their Jewish identity through assimilation and passed into history.

            It is true that a group of Jews (probably merchants from Persia) settled in Kaifeng some time before 1127 C.E. It is also true that their descendants thoroughly embraced Chinese culture, and eventually gave up Jewish traditions. It is not true, however, that they lost their Jewish identity to assimilation.

            If we look at the written records the Kaifeng Jews left behind, we can see that they saw no contradiction between being good Jews and loyal subjects of the empire. Many of the leaders of the Kaifeng community sat for and passed the Confucian examinations to become high officials of the Ming dynasty (1368 C.E.-1644 C.E.). Stone inscriptions that they erected outside of the synagogue in Kaifeng alternately quote the Hebrew Bible and Confucian classics as equivalent sources of sacred wisdom. The leaders of the Kaifeng community deliberately practiced a form of Judaism that could thrive in a religiously plural and vibrantly multiethnic empire.

            This cosmopolitan Judaism proved very durable. The Kaifeng community was small, never numbering more than two-thousand people. Yet they continued to maintain Jewish traditions for more than six hundred years. In the end, it was not assimilation, but the crisis of the imperial state and society with which they had become thoroughly integrated, that caused the Jewish community of Kaifeng to disintegrate. Wars and natural disasters eroded the coherence of both the imperial state and the Kaifeng congregation. The cataclysmic Taiping Rebellion (1850 C.E.-1864 C.E.) dealt the final blow to the religious institutions of the Kaifeng Jews.

What can we Jews here in the U.S. learn from the experience of the Kaifeng Jews? The recent surge of antisemitism has challenged American Jews to decide which threat is more dangerous, that from the “left” or the “right.” From the left, critics invoke old antisemitic stereotypes in attacking the Jewish community’s support of Israel. On the right, racist groups, encouraged by rhetoric coming from the Oval Office, demonize Jews as the architects and beneficiaries of a pluralism white nationalists despise.

If the historical experience of the Kaifeng Jews is any guide, the security of the Jewish community here in the U.S. is best safeguarded by the continued coherence and dynamism of the democracy in which we live. The Kaifeng Jews did not persist by being aggressively exclusionary or parochial, but by integrating their Jewish communal life into that of the larger Chinese empire. In the same way, Jews here in the U.S. have thrived because we have been full participants in a political system that not only guarantees our rights, but those of all our neighbors and compatriots regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity.  If we want to know which form of antisemitism poses the greatest danger, we need only ask: “which is the greater threat to democracy?”

Collusion Continues

The Mueller Report has arrived, and according to Attorney General Barr, it does not contain sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to warrant an indictment. That should come as no surprise. Given the scale and the importance of the "active measures" attack they waged against the U.S. during the 2016 election, it would have been very foolhardy of Russian intelligence operatives to invest any degree of strategic trust in an ally as foolish and unreliable as Donald Trump and the confederacy of dunces surrounding him, who could have undermined the effectiveness of the attack with one errant tweet or offhand remark. But we should be very clear- the fact that Trump did not criminally conspire with Russian intelligence does not indicate that he is innocent of colluding with Russia's attack on American democracy. Indeed, quite the opposite is true.

This truth is so obvious that it should not need explaining. What was the ultimate goal of the Russian attack? To divide Americans against one-another and undermine their faith in democracy. What has been the effect of Donald Trump's response to the Russian attack?  To divide Americans against one-another and undermine their faith in democracy. In every aspect of his conduct since news of the Russian attack first broke, Donald Trump has failed in his duty, not merely as President, but more basically as a loyal citizen of the United States.

The President and his enablers act as if mistrust of the executive was first invented when Donald Trump was elected. But some portion of the electorate has been suspicious of every president since (and including) George Washington. It is the right of Americans to be wary of their leaders, our nation was founded on suspicion of government power. Under those conditions it has always been incumbent on responsible leaders to act in ways that defuse suspicion and actively cultivate trust. All presidents have failed to some degree in those efforts, but even Richard Nixon upheld this principle when he resigned on realizing that he could not redeem the trust of a critical portion of the electorate.

In the history of this political dynamic, Donald Trump is unique and unprecedented. Given the clear evidence that Russian intelligence attacked our election in support of Trump's candidacy, there was only one reaction open to a responsible president of the United States: to unequivocally condemn the attack and to call for a complete and transparent accounting of what had happened, no matter how unflattering it might be to Trump and his campaign. Trump's reaction has been the polar opposite. He has persistently denied the facts of the attack, the responsibility of the Russian government, and the need for an accounting. He and the people around him have repeatedly lied about their contacts with officials of the Russian government and members of its ruling oligarchy, and viciously inveighed against anyone trying to investigate the facts. In this way he has set one half of the country angrily against the other over basic questions of security and civic duty that should be a ground of consensus (i.e. that an attack by a hostile power is a serious threat, and must be redressed). In other words, he has thrown gasoline onto the very fire of civil discord that was the original aim of the Russian attack from the outset.

With the release of the Mueller Report, ironically, the collusion continues. The Special Counsel's investigation has provided us with the most thorough account yet produced by any US agency of the Russian attack on our election. Yet despite the fact that Trump claims to have been "totally exonerated" by the investigation's outcome, the President has denounced it as "an illegal takedown that failed" and that must itself be investigated. Thus even in ostensible "victory" Trump is undermining Americans' defenses against the Russian attack. He refuses to fulfill the duties of his office, protect the American people, and strike a note of unity rather than discord.

Why has Trump colluded with Moscow in this way? I do not pretend to know. Perhaps it is out of vanity, or stupidity, or some bizarre calculation of political advantage. The Mueller Report suggests that it was not done at the direct order of Vladimir Putin. But this does not mean that Donald Trump has not colluded with Russia, only that we do not know why he has done so.

Many questions remain unanswered. We may (thankfully) be confident that Trump did not criminally conspire with Russian intelligence (though the published emails of his son suggest that his campaign was willing and eager to do so). But this does not settle the question of whether the President is in some way compromised by or beholden to Russia. We still do not know why he fawns so obsequiously on Vladimir Putin, to the point of taking the Russian despot's side over that of his own intelligence agencies. We do not know why Trump has been so reluctant to enforce sanction measures against Russia, or so weak in his response to Russian aggression against the Ukraine, or so accommodating of Russian strategic goals in the Middle East and Europe.

The Mueller Report suggests that Trump is not being blackmailed with proof of a conspiracy to get him elected in 2016. But to suggest that this closes the issue of Russia and the Trump White House is like declaring a stabbing pain to the abdomen harmless because appendicitis has been ruled out as a cause. The President and those around him continue to lie about their ties to Russia, they continue to pathologically defer to Russian interests, and they continue to assist the active measures being deployed by Russian intelligence against our democracy. Having eliminated one possible explanation for these strange phenomena, others need to be explored.  Are the president's finances structured in such a way that make him indebted to Russian interests? Does he have business dealings that promise him profits from Russia or its allies? The American people are entitled to answers to these and other questions.

The Mueller Report itself would be a good place to begin looking for them. Given the robust powers assigned to the Special Counsel's office, Robert Mueller was in a better position than virtually anyone else to explore Donald Trump's enterprises and commercial interests. His report might contain information that would help us make sense of the President's strange and destructive behavior- it should be made available in its entirety to the voting public. Beyond this, we should finally see the President's tax returns, as he promised they would be revealed more than two years ago. Donald Trump claims to have been "completely exonerated," but this is a sham: by continuing to duck and hide, he persists in aiding Russia's campaign against the U.S. The only escape from that condition lies in the transparency that Americans have demanded and had a right to expect from every other president. Until Trump provides us with that transparency, he is not merely a man acting as if he were guilty, but will remain (for motives unknown) guilty of collusion with Russian intelligence in undermining our democracy.

An Open Letter to Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D MI) and Ilhan Omar (D MN)

To the Honorable Representatives Tlaib and Omar:

            As a fellow American and Democrat who is also a Jew and a Zionist, I write to you out of a concern for the atmosphere of tension that has  attended your election to Congress. Both of you achieved historic "firsts" in the House of Representatives, the occasion of your taking office should be a moment for all Americans to take pride in the fulfillment of our highest ideals of inclusiveness and empowerment. It is thus regrettable that what should be a happy occasion has been marred by political squabbling.

            I realize that some of this acrimony is political artifice. There are always opportunists on either side of the partisan divide ready to trade in stereotypes and fearmongering. It was inevitable that your election would be met with alarmist rhetoric, no matter what you did or said upon taking office. You were going to be (and have been) the subject of unfair scrutiny, exaggerated accusations, and ugly abuse because of who you are, rather than what you stood for.

           That being said, however, any fair assessment must acknowledge that you have made mistakes and missed opportunities. Some of the furor that has attended your political debut can be put down to partisan bluster and bigotry, but not all. Representative Tlaib's association with activists that broadcast hateful rhetoric has raised doubts, and Representative Omar's recent statements on Twitter have aroused fear and concern.

           These doubts and fears cannot be reduced to expressions of prejudice. Why is this the case? Criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian cause are not uncommon even among American Jews, after all. But two factors make this discourse a fraught subject for Jewish-Americans:

           1)Jews here in the US live constantly with the legacy of antisemitism. Many Jewish-Americans lost family in (or are the descendants of survivors of) the Holocaust. Beyond that, institutionalized antisemitism that denied Jews opportunities or subjected them to harassment and violence is a living memory here in the US. Though the worst aspects of such antisemitism have been ameliorated, latent antisemitism remains endemic in American society (our president's characterization of Nazi protesters in Charlottesville as "very fine people" is only one of many examples one might offer), and criticism of Israel has, in some quarters, become a mode in which antisemitic bigotry may be expressed. It is no longer socially acceptable (as it once was) to accuse Jews of being congenitally miserly or dishonest, but antisemites will seize upon the pretext of Israel to accuse Jews of having divided loyalties or of using their money to manipulate policy. For this reason those who enter the public arena to broadcast opposition to Israeli policy are met with extreme caution, and incite condemnation if they employ rhetoric that raises the specter of antisemitism.

          2)Most Jews here in the US view anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. Here I would apply a very narrow definition of "anti-Zionism": it does not signify mere criticism of Israel or some aspect of Israeli policy, but the outright denial of Israel's right to exist. Whatever theoretical justifications one might give for espousing anti-Zionism, the practical ramifications of Israel's dissolution for the international Jewish community would be so catastrophic that most Jews are not inclined to grant any distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The Holocaust could not have happened if Israel had existed, and the surest safeguard against a future anti-Jewish genocide is the continued presence of Israel on the world stage. Thus an overt, proactive, and unambiguous embrace of a two-state solution is the minimum threshold that most Jews will demand of any critic of Israel to be acknowledged as dealing in good faith. In terms of US policy, because most Jews understand that the US-Israeli alliance is vital to Israel's security, anyone perceived as advocating a termination of that alliance will be suspect of being anti-Zionist and, therefore, antisemitic.

          These two dimensions of Jewish-American political life have conditioned the response to your actions and pronouncements since taking office. To be sure, much of the invective that has been hurled at you expresses bigotry as heinous and destructive as antisemitism. But some of the criticism you have encountered arises from your (or those associated with you) having trespassed upon concerns to which Jewish-Americans have persistently and understandably been sensitive.

          There are many reasons to regret this situation. The integrity of the Democratic coalition is one. You both deservedly enjoy a high profile in the national image of the Democratic caucus, but it would be a shame for that exposure to cause avoidable disunity in the party. Though Jews are a small community, they have historically skewed Democratic, giving between 70% and 80% of their votes to Democratic candidates in national elections. As a fellow Democrat I would hate to see the GOP make significant inroads in that support, especially in an era that has frequently seen national contests decided by five-digit voting margins.  

         Beyond this, further miscommunication and/or disharmony would represent a tragically missed opportunity for the cause of peace. Few communities are as engaged with the issue of Israel-Palestine here in the US (or the world) as that of Jewish-Americans, and most Jewish-Americans (59%, according to a recent survey) support the creation of a Palestinian state. American Jews are thus a natural audience and a potential resource for those concerned with the struggle for Palestinian statehood, and anyone who approaches them seeking to implement a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine will find many enthusiastic allies.
 
        This stands in stark contrast to another, much larger community deeply invested in the issue of US-Israeli relations: that of American Evangelical Christians. For most Christian Zionists the establishment of a Palestinian state would impede cherished religious goals. Thus those committed to keeping US policy focused on the realization of Palestinian statehood are well advised to cultivate unity and coordination. 

         Yair Rosenberg, writing in Tablet, has stated that the current moment calls for dialogue, not denunciation. He is of course correct, and it is in that spirit that I write you today. If you reach out to the Jewish-American community and are minimally sensitive to its concerns, you will find many eager to work with you on a whole array of issues. If you have not done so already, I am sure that there are many, many synagogues across the nation where you would be very welcome to speak (my own included) and be met with open and respectful engagement. Whatever happens, your election is an exciting moment for the Democratic party and the United States of America. With a little bit of effort, patience, and mutual political sensitivity, it could be a very hopeful moment for Israel, Palestine, and the whole world.
          
          Please forgive anything in this letter that expresses conditions of which you were already aware or ignorance of efforts you have already undertaken. I write as much to express my own desire for amity as to instruct others. I hope in any case that this message finds you both well, and I thank you for your time and attention.

                                                  Sincerely,


                                                  Andrew Meyer

American Jews, Israel, and the Democratic Party

I have been getting a lot of messages and questions from friends and family about Israel, and especially about attitudes toward Israel in the Democratic Party. I hope that readers of this blog will forgive me poaching from other writing by way of addressing the issue here. A student sent me a link to a recent New York Times Op/Ed column by Matti Friedman, in which Friedman argued that "There is No Israel-Palestinian Conflict". The student asked me what I thought. I answered him, posted my answer to Facebook and now offer it below:

Hey there. Glad to hear from you in the new year.


I read Friedman's piece (as usual, on the treadmill at the gym). On the one hand I can appreciate his giving richer context to the issue- a historian can never really fault someone for demanding more context. But on the level of basic logic I find his approach rather sophistic. You could make this argument about any social issue at any place and time in human history. "There was no racial conflict between whites and blacks in the US of the 1960's, because that must be viewed in the context of the Cold War, the threat of the Soviet Union, Vietnam, etc." "There was no conflict between Turks and Armenians in the early 20th century, because that has to be viewed in the context of great power diplomacy, WWI, the Balkans, etc."

Yes, no binary conflict happens in a vacuum, and yes, many factors exacerbate each conflict and complicate the search for a resolution. But nothing detracts from the onus on the parties involved to seek a just peace. Nothing Friedman said in his article changes these facts: 1)The West Bank remains occupied, and its residents denied the right of enfranchisement in a sovereign government. The people occupying them and denying them that right are the Israelis. 2)If you made all of the people living in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem citizens, Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority, and thus would no longer be a "Jewish state" in Herzlian terms; 3)The only just peace that preserves Israel as a Jewish state is a two-state solution; 4)The main impediment to a two-state solution is the presence of 300,000 Jewish settlers on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, many of whom are ready to (and already have, as in the case of Yitzhak Rabin) murder anyone trying to effect a two-state solution.

So that is my response to Friedman, which probably induces a sense of deja vu for you, since it is basically a reiteration of views that I'm sure I've shared with you before. Basically, I think Friedman's argument is of a species that appears very often from moderate-right Israeli intellectuals, which I will call the "it's complicated" argument. "Those people pushing us to resolve this issue don't understand- it's complicated." This kind of argument gets a lot of traction, in part because it has some merit, in part because most American Jews really don't know all the facts, and so it is very easy to impress them with how complicated the situation is.

All of that is fair, but my sense is that this kind of argument is going to come up against a very steep margin of diminishing returns in years to come. The occupation has gone on for almost 51 years now- with each passing year people around the world will have less and less patience with the proposition that the problem "requiring" the occupation was too complicated to be resolved in the time available to do so. Movements like BDS are not going away, they are only going to get stronger. You can see the effects now, with the election of people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as Democrats to Congress. The pro-Palestinian movement within the Democratic Party here in the US is going to grow in strength. This is going to put liberal Zionists like myself in a bad position- I am facing the prospect of having to choose between my sympathies for Israel and my support of the larger Democratic policy agenda. As you might be able to tell, arguments like Friedman's notwithstanding, my inclination is increasingly in the latter direction, and will remain so until I see evidence of some kind of good faith effort on the part of the Israeli government to institute a two-state solution.

I don't know how useful or cogent you find my musings. In any case I hope this message finds you well, with 2019 opening up good paths for you. Come look for me if you are on campus in the spring.