<![CDATA[ - Issues to Connect]]>

<![CDATA[ - Issues to Connect]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:30:25 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Immobilized By the Dismantling of Our Democracy]]>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 18:20:53 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/immobilized-by-the-dismantling-of-our-democracy

McKnights- A closed Nursing Home

Trump is doing things that will ultimately hurt and even kill many Americans. A large number of Americans, however, seem impervious to the dangers he poses to them and their families. As Trump destroys our democracy, a large number of Americans seem transfixed, unable to move, or even to focus on what this means to them. Trump has taken many legal, military, and social welfare actions that will harm Americans, even if they are paralyzed.

Trump’s Goons
Trump says putting masked men on the street is needed to remove undocumented immigrants from the country without endangering law enforcement personnel. However, it is we, not law enforcement personnel, who are endangered. As evil as removing immigrants without due process is, it is even more heinous to arrest U.S. citizens without due process. We want to see the faces and badges of people who can take our freedom away, so we can question their right to do so. The rebuttal that law-abiding individuals do not have to worry is, on its face, ridiculous and cruel. It is precisely because there are innocent and law-abiding citizens who may be wronged that we need to see who is threatening us so that we can protest. We even need to know if the people threatening us are even government agents. With no identification, thugs pretending to be government agents can attack us. Trump’s use of masked law enforcement officers instills fear. His agents of fear are not always masked law enforcement agents; sometimes, they are his followers who take his words as permission to threaten and kill.

Trump’s Courts
Beyond the dangers to individual liberty, there is a ripple effect posed by this dictatorial undermining of the rule of law. The normalization of bypassing legal safeguards—through executive actions, dubious legal interpretations, and politicized appointments—has fostered an environment where rights once thought inviolable now seem alarmingly reversible. The judiciary, traditionally a bulwark against executive overreach and corruption, has become increasingly polarized, with appointments made more for ideological loyalty than for impartial jurisprudence. This erosion of legal norms undermines public faith in core democratic institutions, making it easier for future leaders to test and transgress boundaries with little resistance. Additionally, Trump and his followers have demonstrated a tolerance for corrupt practices like those associated with Russia, Hungary, and other authoritarian countries. So far, he has fired 17 Inspectors General whose primary job was to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. This type of public corruption has hindered economic growth in authoritarian countries and is likely to do the same in this country.

The camouflage for the assault on the rule of law and the accompanying corruption is a relentless campaign of disinformation, amplification of fringe conspiracies, and the discrediting of experts and journalists. Trump and his supporters have cultivated a landscape where verified information is perpetually in doubt. This has not only fractured public discourse but also made collective action in the face of crises—be they public health emergencies, environmental disasters, or threats to social stability—profoundly more difficult. When reality itself becomes a matter of partisan allegiance, democracy’s foundation is dangerously weakened.

Trump’s Peace Through Bombs
Trump has endangered millions of Americans by taking military actions against Iran. Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s reckless decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Urged on by Israel, any benefit from Trump’s decision rests on the premise that a show of American military might stops Iran from enriching uranium. If that premise is incorrect, then demonstrating American military will likely cause Iran to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible, perhaps even exceeding the expert’s prediction of one to three years for development. More troubling, other countries in the region may also be encouraged by the U.S. bombs to develop atomic weapons to defend themselves against Israel and the U.S. arsenal. A nuclear-armed Middle East is a powder keg waiting to blow.

Of course, Iran may continue to launch missile attacks against Israel. Regardless of whether Iran wages a war of attrition against Israel within the next few weeks or the next few years, it seems likely that Iran will retaliate against the U.S. If Iran reacts sooner rather than later, we may very well expect terror attacks directed at Americans anywhere in the world. If Iran responds within the next few years, it may be with nuclear weapons.

Trump’s Disregard for Americans and the Economy
Trump may cause harm to Americans is in social welfare and thus threatens all Americans. Social welfare encompasses the country’s economic well-being, health, and safety. A key duty of governments is to create and maintain a social welfare environment that allows their citizens to thrive. Trump is not only failing to maintain a viable social welfare but has also implemented social welfare policies that imperil the country. Trump, for example, has ordered congressional Republicans to pass a budget bill that will increase the deficit by $3 trillion and cut funding for nursing homes by 67 percent and rural hospitals by 21 percent. These decreases in Medicaid funding will lead to an increase in uncompensated hospital care and a reduction in the number of people who sign up for Affordable Care insurance exchanges. This will not only harm low-income Americans, but it will also raise medical costs for middle-income Americans. Rural hospital closure will cause more crowding or urban hospitals as well and increase costs. Private insurers will likely raise the premiums they charge for private insurance to offset the shortfall. The purpose of these decreases in the quality of health care is primarily to reduce taxes for the wealthiest one percent.

Additionally, Trump has increased tariffs on all countries, although some countries like Canada and Mexico received a carve out on some products. The ripple effect of these increased tariffs will be to encourage manufacturers in the U.S. to also raise their prices. Thus, these increased tariffs will almost certainly be inflationary. Trump has also begun to deport immigrants, resulting in a reduce in the agricultural labor force. One effect of this will be to raise food costs in the U.S., not only raising costs for consumers but also decreasing the competitiveness of U.S. farmers. Trump’s policies have also antagonized foreign populations to such an extent that spending by foreign travelers has dropped by 7 percent, severely hurting the nearly $1 trillion tourism industry. Trump has also raised concerns about the possibility of future pandemics and health problems because of his appointment of a Secretary of Health who does not believe in vaccinations or public health.

Countering Ambivalence
Considering the damage Trump and his followers have done, it is surprising that any Americans are undisturbed by their actions. Some of these Americans may be paralyzed by ambivalence. Other Americans they may want to protest Trump’s actions, but they dread the repercussions of opposing him. Relying on elections and the political process to restore the democracy that Trump dismantled is a way to resolve the discomfort of this ambivalence and avoid confronting the fear of possible repercussions.

Hoping that elections will undo Trump’s damage without resorting to direct action in the street is soothing. Elections and the political process, however, will not be sufficient to overcome the fascism that has infected our country. Unfortunately, we are in for a protracted struggle.

]]><![CDATA[Dawdling Toward Dictatorship]]>Wed, 28 May 2025 00:33:09 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/dawdling-toward-dictatorship

We expect the Democratic politicians, liberal commentators, and neutral observers who claim to be moderates or centrists to oppose the fascist dictatorship that Trump and his followers are attempting to impose. Instead, we have those who fail to realize or imagine the danger we face and lack the understanding of the tactics used to endanger us.

Dictator for A Day

Some of these moderates or centrists fail to imagine that Trump and his followers want to end democracy in this country and have been moving at lightning speed to do it. As disconcerting as it is to consider that some Americans want to end our democracy in favor of a dictatorship, we know it is true because they say it or indicate in other ways that they would support a dictatorship. Yet, too many moderates or centrists, perhaps finding the repudiation of democracy unfamiliar, ascribe every other possible motive to what is being done to destroy our democracy. They dissect the personality of Trump and his followers, or weigh the pros and cons of their agendas and initiatives.

During his campaign and inauguration, Trump repeatedly said that he only wanted to be a dictator for one day. He claimed that he would only need to be a dictator for one day to accomplish his plans to open oil drilling and build a wall on the border. Now, after his inauguration, he has added to the list of things he says he wants to accomplish. He has continued to seize powers not granted to the president by the Constitution, such as abolishing regulatory agencies, ignoring the courts, and changing laws enacted by Congress. And he bragged, during an interview, that he runs the U.S. and the world. Presumably, he has removed any time limit on his desire to be a dictator.

Trump’s supporters also agree that he should be a dictator for at least a day. A recent poll found that seventy-four percent of Republicans believe it is a good idea for Trump to act as a dictator. Mitt Romney admitted that “a substantial portion of the GOP doesn’t believe in the Constitution.” Many of Trump’s supporters have well-developed fascist or authoritarian beliefs about how society should function, although their personalities or upbringing may have contributed to these leanings. Those beliefs are consistent with the ideas Trump has been preaching since he entered politics 10 years ago.

Ideologies Driving Trump Supporters

Trump’s supporters complain about vanishing economic opportunities and governmental inefficiency. They are bothered by the equality and inclusion of nonwhites in American society, which they see as a reason for their diminishing economic opportunity. They are attracted to Trump because he promises to upend the predicted shift in the U.S. population from majority white to majority nonwhite. They fear that this shift is a sign that whites will be replaced by nonwhites and expect Trump to take the extreme measures needed to forestall this population change. This belief in the extinction of the white race by nonwhites, known as the “great replacement theory,” has been a cornerstone of white supremacist and fascist ideologies for almost a century. The neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted this belief “Jews will not replace us.”

Trump’s supporters are also heavily drawn from the Christian nationalism movement. This movement has been imbued with white supremacists and opponents of democracy. They believe the nation cannot reflect true Christianity as a multiracial democracy. Other supporters include some of the wealthiest and most influential innovators and businessmen, who have also become opponents of democracy. The anti-democrats believe that experts should make decisions rather than voters, who may be ignorant about some of the issues they are voting on. They think that the country should be run like a company whose President has the power to make the full range of decisions that a CEO would be able to make. Like the older, sweat-shirted white supremacists, these newer button-down racists believe equality and democracy are making it impossible to govern. Often, they think that the best way to end this chaos and inefficiency is to accelerate the creation of more chaos and bring the entire system down. It should be noted that these Trump supporters do not believe in Trump as the leader so much as Trump the super chaos agent.

Finally, some social scientists say that at least a portion of Trump’s supporters are dissatisfied with democracy because they see the last vestige of their status – whiteness slipping away as the brown and black population grows. According to the historian Richard Hofstadter, the loss of status can occur when people feel they have been pushed out of their rightful place in society. His analysis of how status loss among some Republicans in the 1950s led to rabid anti-communism and rejection of democracy is still instructive. It shows that the quest for lost status can become nasty and vindictive.

Most of Trump's supporters' rejection of our constitutional democracy is neither frivolous nor trivial; some passing pique did not bring it about. It is based on firm beliefs grounded in a long-standing, albeit defective ideology. Despite these facts, many Democrats seem unable or unwilling to realize how serious they are or what they are willing to do to bring about a fascist dictatorship.

Trump’s Techniques for Manipulating Voters

Even the moderates and centrists who do recognize that Trump and his followers have been moving to install a fascist dictatorship do not seem to understand how they are doing it. Thus, these moderates and centrists cannot effectively oppose the takeover without this understanding. For example, Trump's tactics when he speaks seem beyond their knowledge. Their lack of awareness results in their inability to devise plans to resist forcefully and uncompromisingly. And another consequence is the mistaken belief that those Trump followers who succumb to his tactics are somehow deficient or innately evil.

Trump’s executive actions on tariffs during his first 100 days in office offer one example of how he manipulates the public. While some analysts may welcome the imposition of tariffs because they promise rejuvenation for specific industries, most analysts believe that across-the-board tariffs of the magnitude proposed by Trump will hurt the overall economy. Thus, the imposition of these tariffs is generally viewed with dread. Rather than simply imposing tariffs, Trump has arbitrarily placed tariffs on some goods, exempted other goods, placed additional tariffs, and rescinded other tariffs. Trump’s implementation of tariffs, followed by exemptions or reductions, amounts to a psychological desensitization technique. The imposition or threat of tariffs, followed by the removal of the tariffs, is desensitizing. Desensitization numbs the emotional response to the imposition of tariffs and rationalizes inaction about their onset because they are normalized.

Trump has also used psychological mechanisms to freeze opposition to his horrendous immigration policies. While most observers recognize that Trump tries to invoke fear of immigrants with wild exaggerations of their criminal involvement, few realize how he induces cognitive dissonance in his followers. When the public hears Trump present his inhumane policies for addressing immigration problems, many experience psychological discomfort because those policies conflict with their beliefs about how Christians and Americans should treat people. Trump frames his policies in a way that can resolve dissonance. For example, Trump often says, “we won’t have a country if we don’t…” do what he is advocating. This framing not only gains support for his policies but also freezes potential opposition by raising issues other than his horrendous policies.

Observers also realize that Trump frequently uses projection, a technique in which one’s negative characteristics are attributed to others. Trump, a convicted felon and sex offender, often alleged, without any evidence, that his political opponents were criminals. He has alleged that Democrats in general and the Bidens in particular are criminals. The use of projection is more than Trump’s psychological abnormality. It is also a way of sowing confusion and thus freezes any opposition.

Various commentators correctly argue that Trump is too erratic to plan and not intellectually talented enough to innovate, but he has picked up these rhetorical tricks somewhere. Despite his personality deficiencies, Trump learned from Roy Cohn when he was far more able and cognitively aware than now. Now, Trump is surrounded by a cadre of sycophants who seem to be guiding his decision-making more than in his first administration. We should not follow the mainstream media and think that the Trump regime reflects Trump's ideas and personality. If we do this, we will be surprised by what Trump does and what happens after Trump.

Conclusion
The failure to recognize the extent to which some Trump followers want to destroy democracy and install a fascist dictatorship should not be underestimated. Some Americans not only tell pollsters that they favor a dictatorship, but they also have solid ideological reasons for their position. Nonetheless, other Trump followers have been swayed by psychological techniques that should be exposed and countered. Moderates and centrists should not simply “tell the truth;” they must also expose those techniques and provide countermeasures. Countermeasures were developed and taught to prepare U.S. servicemen for attempts to disorient and brainwash them during the Cold War. Some of those same countermeasures should be deployed now for many of the same reasons. Surely, even moderates and centrists who seem bemused by how to effectively oppose Trump’s fascist movement can spare some of their electoral efforts to fight fascism.

]]><![CDATA[Out of Trump’s Twilight Zone]]>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:46:21 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/out-of-trumps-twilight-zone

Trump’s second term seems to be from the Twilight Zone. Some roads with signs promise new destinations, but they all return to the same place. Our political leaders and opinion makers do not yet recognize that we have almost lost our democracy and must develop a strategy to restore it. Instead, they are fixated on winning the next election by ensuring voters know that Trump and Musk have done something terrible. Nonetheless, in area after area, Trump and Musk are taking actions that will facilitate a dictatorial takeover.

The Democratic Party, the only political party that champions democracy, appears to be unaware of the failure of its strategy to counter authoritarian tactics in the last election. For some reason, the Democratic Party seems to take solace in how close it came to defeating Trump. Many Democrats seem to believe that because the 2024 election was close, with a bit more effort, they will undoubtedly defeat Trump in 2028 (the election he should be exempt from by law). They have lost sight of the fact that in the last election, Democrats had a president, held the Senate, and still lost to an opponent willing to do anything to win. If we are going to restore democracy, we need to determine why we lost and what we must do to stop a fascist movement that is already in control of most of the government and close to taking over the remainder.

Denial of Reality

Everywhere we look, there are examples of politicians and commentators denying the reality surrounding us. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, decided to join with Republicans to pass a continuing resolution needed to keep the government open. He argued that permitting the government to close would allow Musk and Trump to choose which agencies to close and which workers to furlough. More importantly, Schumer contended that closing the government would also close the courts and halt lawsuits seeking to prevent Musk and Trump’s alleged illegal actions. Also, Schumer did not want to risk incurring blame from the voters for shutting down the government.

Schumer’s arguments, however, fail to recognize that Trump has already captured the government. Our only chance to save democracy is to mobilize the people as quickly as possible. If Democrats had refused to help Republicans pass the continuing resolution, it could have helped mobilize people by showing a strong opposing party. Nonetheless, Schumer correctly noted that refusing to pass the continuing resolution would not have prevented Trump from acting. There will be other opportunities, perhaps better ones, to mobilize people. Hopefully, Democrats in the Senate will have another leader, as Schumer seems to lack political wisdom.

Will We Have Free and Fair Elections?

The U.S. will hold nationwide elections in 2026 and 2028. Dictators like Putin, Orban, and Maduro all hold elections. The question is, will U.S. elections continue to be free and fair? Trump has already told his voters that they will not have to vote for him again because future elections will not be necessary. In 2020, Trump demonstrated that he does not abide by the outcome of free and fair elections. To ensure that he is the winner, Trump uses voter suppression tactics like (1) purging likely Democratic voters from the registration lists, (2) requiring women to show proof of legally changing their maiden names to their married names, (3) pouring money from wealthy donors into legacy media with paid advertising, and (4) saturating social media with disinformation. Perhaps he uses other means that have not yet been recognized. Cheaters have many methods.

Some investigations of the 2024 election show improbable voting patterns. The Election Truth Alliance has found that Trump’s victory in Nevada’s 88 counties has never been duplicated by a candidate winning with as narrow a margin as Trump's. Now, with the Department of Justice and the FBI run by loyalists to him rather than the Constitution, he has more resources to rig the outcomes of elections. Still, most Democratic politicians and commentators are unwilling to openly discuss how we can try to surmount barriers to free and fair elections. Urging Democratic voters to the polls may not be enough to secure future election victories. We need to inspire people to vote and to vote for democracy. Protests, demonstrations, book clubs, and knocking on doors are all acts that show people that a fascist dictatorship is not normal, and we can fix it through our votes.

Crashing the Economy

Trump is intent on crashing the good economy he inherited from Biden. And from his perspective, this makes sense. He has increased tariffs on all goods from China by 20 percent, on most goods from Mexico and Canada by 25 percent, and on all steel and aluminum from around the world by 20 percent. Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union have responded with retaliatory increases in tariffs on U.S. goods, especially agricultural goods. Many opinion leaders and commentators seem to know that U.S. taxpayers who buy foreign goods will pay the increased tariffs on U.S. goods. Thus, increased tariffs will reduce the purchasing power of Americans. Less obvious are other implications of these tariffs. Commentators and opinion leaders assume that Trump is ignorant of the effects of tariffs on the economy. However, Trump may want to crash the economy with a recession. Strategist Russell Kirk, a guiding light for many conservatives in the post-war period, argued that a large and prosperous middle class led to political upheaval. In contrast, the absence of a large and prosperous middle class led to political peace. Kirk argued that an affluent upper class would support the status quo while a large and struggling lower class would lack the time and resources to foster change.

Furthermore, economic constraints in the middle class may reduce the ability of the Democratic base to contribute to Democratic campaigns. Trump and Musk have established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to trim government spending. But it is not operating in a way that will yield actual savings. The only cuts that are substantial enough to affect actual savings are those in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. Cuts in those Departments would have enormous consequences for the country’s debt. The real purpose of DOGE is to eliminate jobs critical to the economy, such as air traffic controllers, nuclear safety monitors, and FDA inspectors.

Putin’s Man In Washington

There is irrefutable evidence that since the late 1980s, Trump has received and given favors to Russian government officials. His son Eric has openly admitted that a significant source of income for Trump’s businesses has been Russians. In return, Trump has made real estate available to Russians without the usual pre-tenant investigation. Trump, in 1987, also repeated Russian talking points calling for the U.S. to stop military aid to Japan. In effect, Trump paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in newspaper advertisements calling for the U.S. to dismantle the postwar Western alliance. From what we have seen, Trump is beholden to Russian officials. Senator Jeff Merkley asked two prospective administration officials if Donald Trump was a Russian asset. Merkley raised this question because Trump had given Putin everything Putin could wish for. (Notably, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post had stories about Merkley’s questions about Trump being an asset.) Whether Trump is a Russian asset or merely a friend of Russian intelligence officials matters in only one aspect. If Trump is an asset, then Putin undoubtedly has some compromising material on him. The Russian playbook for its assets is to obtain material that can be used for blackmail should the asset ever try to quit.

The Courts May Not Save Us

Several groups have filed court cases to reverse or stop DOGE from accessing sensitive data to which it has no right, disrupting government operations, and firing government employees. None of these actions is within the purview of an organization that has not been congressionally mandated. So far, the courts have reason to question the legality of DOGE’s actions in some 50 cases. However, Trump will undoubtedly appeal these lower court rulings to the Supreme Court. And if he is found to have exceeded his authority, he may disobey the Supreme Court. The failure of the Trump administration to fully comply with the lower court rulings in these cases suggests that this is a possibility.

The Trump administration has been even more reluctant to comply with court orders regarding the deportation of undocumented immigrants. In one instance, a judge ordered planes carrying deportees to a prison in El Salvador to either return or not take off, but the Trump administration ignored it. The Trump administration claimed that it had the right to ignore court orders because the deportees were Venezuelan gang members who had “invaded” the U.S. at the behest of the Venezuelan government. In several cases, however, the Trump administration claimed that the Venezuelan deportees had “gang tattoos;” the tattoos were found to be innocuous. In none of the cases was the Venezuelan government connected to the deportees. Some of the families and defense attorneys for these deportees allege that their clients had not committed crimes and were either citizens of the U.S. or documented. Unless the courts can prevail and force the return of these deportees, they may remain in an El Salvadoran prison indefinitely.

Despite the apparent illegality of many of the Trump administration's actions, there is reason to doubt the courts' ability to save us. First, the Supreme Court has shown deference to the Trump administration in some critical cases, although the Court has ruled against Trump in many cases. Second, there is more than one way for Trump to obtain a favorable verdict. He can delay cases, re-file them, or revise executive orders or actions to meet the court’s objections. Third, the Supreme Court can always change the issues presented to it and arrive at an unanticipated ruling that favors Trump.

Still Reason to Hope

The reluctance of opinion leaders, commentators, and politicians to admit that we are on the verge of a fascist dictatorship is made clear by using “Constitutional crisis” to describe where our country is. In the last few days, one commentator said that we can no longer ask if we are in a Constitutional crisis; we must now ask what the consequences of a Constitutional crisis are. Those consequences have been spelled out in many works on authoritarian and fascist dictatorships. Nonetheless, I am somewhat optimistic about regaining our democracy. It has been done before. Notably, democratic movements have not been led by politicians or those who want to wait to see if what our eyes tell us is accurate. We must demonstrate, and we must do so now. The courts cannot save us, and Republicans will not save us. The media will not cover our dissent unless we command them to.

The Trump administration cannot disinform the people if our dissent is covered. Besides demonstrations, we can form book clubs and attend study groups at our places of worship, work, or union. In other words, we must understand their lies and distractions and then organize to overcome them! Civil rights and union movements can provide tried and valid templates for organizations. The recent book Spell Freedom by Elaine Weiss describes how Southern activists set up schools to teach potential Black voters how to surmount Jim Crow voter registration requirements to vote. I do not believe Americans will tolerate the new subservience. If, with more tremendous handicaps, those movements were successful, then we can also win.

We, as individuals, must believe that we can overcome the devastating destruction of our government. This is our moment to save America.

]]><![CDATA[Blame Joe Biden]]>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:26:44 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/blame-joe-biden

November 2024: Joe Biden welcomes Trump back to the White House

I am furious with President Joe Biden. Biden won the presidency in 2020 by promising to preserve our democracy. He said the purpose of his candidacy and presidency was to ensure the safety of our democracy. But Biden broke his promise. He failed to engage the fascist insurrectionists who attacked us and thus set Trump on the road to destroying our democracy. We voted for Biden to confront the fascist insurrectionists. Instead, for his term, Biden allowed his administration to normalize Trump and the fascist enemy.

Despite some groundbreaking presidential legislative victories, Biden failed to defeat fascism or even to put Democrats on a path to win the 2024 presidential election. Defeating fascism would have required reversing the electoral underperformance of Democrats over the last 30 or 40 years. But the Republican Party Biden faced was led by a convicted felon and had become highly corrupt. This corruption had become more apparent as the Republican agenda became more extreme and less centered on the welfare of the country. Biden's most fundamental mistake was choosing a strategy to defeat Trump that was highly flawed and ill-suited to the threat we faced.

The country dodged a bullet in 2020 when the January 6 insurrection, planned and carried out by Trump and a group of his loyalists, was unsuccessful. The narrowness of this escape should have been a signal to President Biden that overcoming fascist insurrectionists would require that he take robust actions to fight for democracy. Nonetheless, President Biden prioritized economic issues as the dubious strategy for fighting insurrectionists. Biden's focus on economic issues was an attempt to show the MAGA insurrectionists that the federal government could deliver legislation and achieve economic growth. Many of these economic programs targeted red states – the seat of much of the insurrectionist opinion. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) seemingly inspired Biden's focus on the economy. FDR used an economic recovery in the thirties to defeat an earlier wave of fascists.

To his credit, Biden pushed through the most progressive economic legislation since President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). Although this legislation is admirable, the process of enacting it sent some troubling signals to some observers. Biden could not pass the crown jewel of his economic program, a $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill. He could not persuade or coerce two Democratic Senators, Manchin and Sinema, to change the Senate filibuster rules. Without such a change, voting rights legislation could not have been passed. After almost a year of negotiations, Congress passed a $2.2 trillion program. The media reports of Democrats wrangling among themselves made Biden look weak. More importantly, because of this wrangling, the bill's impact was delayed even more than one would expect with infrastructure projects. Thus, any positive electoral for Biden and Democrats in the 2024 election was unlikely.

The positive effects of these economic programs for Biden and Democrats were also limited by the many changes that have occurred since FDR's time. The virulent racial antagonisms that existed in the thirties were hidden behind a cotton curtain in the South. Today, racial antagonism has spread throughout the country. During this same period, there has been increased immigration by people of color to the country. In part, because of these demographic changes and the efforts by the federal government to manage them, there has been an extreme decrease in trust in the federal government from 70 to 22 percent. The promise by the Biden Administration to improve the economic conditions of Americans was not believed. Most importantly, social inequality has increased over the past 50 years. Now, 36 percent of the public cannot raise $400 to meet an emergency. The indicators of improved economic conditions associated with the Biden Administration had little meaning for the 36 percent of the public that had previously been bypassed. It is unlikely that mirroring FDR's economic approach could quell a revived fascist threat.

The fascist insurrection we faced was part of a more significant political movement. Economic discontent fueled this movement, as did other discontents. Biden should have recognized that he had to confront these other discontents politically and economically. Biden failed to do this. Instead, he resorted to what he thought was the strategy that FDR used to defeat fascism in the thirties. Besides economic programs, FDR also used political action. FDR's use of economic programs to restore confidence in the federal government contributed to the defeat of fascism following the Great Depression. However, FDR also directly confronted fascism at home and abroad. Roosevelt made speeches and radio addresses educating the public and politicians about the threat fascism posed to democracy. He also supported the FBI in surveilling and monitoring organizations and individuals who espoused fascist links to Germany or Italy. Roosevelt also provided aid to the Allies despite the isolationist tendencies of the Congress. Biden did lead NATO countries in supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion. However, fearful of escalating the war, Biden did not provide the Ukrainians with the advanced weapons needed to defeat Russia.

Domestically, Biden also did not fully follow the path set by FDR. He did not educate the public about the growing threat of fascism. Biden could not inform the public. He did not understand that the insurrections were part of a movement determined to destroy the U.S. Biden sought to recast the fascist insurrectionists as lawbreakers who may have needed to be punished for crimes rather than as ideologues who were part of a movement determined to destroy our democracy. Biden's biggest mistake was appointing a former judge, Merrick Garland, as Attorney General. Garland, like Biden, did not recognize the fascist roots of the insurrectionists. As a result, Garland timidly pursued the insurrectionists. He moved indecisively to identify and hold all the insurrectionists accountable. Garland also failed to stretch the boundaries of the law; as Attorney General, it was not his job to determine which gray areas crossed those boundaries. He did not use the powers of the Justice Department and the FBI as tools to defeat a movement that was threatening to destroy the United States. Instead, Garland sought to convince the fascist insurrectionists who were attacking the U.S. that they should stop those attacks because the Department of Justice was exercising restraint in holding them to account.

There were many things Biden could have done to fight the insurrectionists, but he chose not to do them. Biden had promised to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act but did not push it. Meanwhile, at least 19 legislatures sympathetic to the insurrectionists have passed new restrictions on voting. Political organizers and activists warned White House officials that voter turnout would be efforts would be compromised if Biden did not pass the bill. Because Blacks and other minorities were so vocal in warning about the harmful effects of not passing the voting rights legislation, the issue became identified as a minority issue. White House officials were convinced they would overcome the voter suppression and restriction with increased turnout efforts. Because Biden wanted to push his economic plan, he abandoned voting rights legislation. Ten million Democratic-leaning voters sat out the 2024 election. Other issues undoubtedly contributed to these voters staying home, but as the Democratic organizers and activists predicted, failing to push voting rights undermined a Democratic victory in 2024.

Merrick Garland should have begun criminally investigating Donald Trump and Congress members for their participation in the January 6 insurrection as soon as he was sworn in as Attorney General. Instead, he procrastinated investigating acknowledged supporters and insurrectionists until he charged many low-level participants. His announced rationale was to identify and accumulate evidence against the low-level participants. Once identified, the accumulated evidence could then be used against the leaders. However, this procedure was unnecessary when the insurrection leaders acknowledged their support for the insurrection, and the media published information about their participation. Almost two years after the January 6 insurrection, Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel. Six months later, Smith obtained an indictment against Trump. In hopes of speeding up Trump's trial, Smith did not bring indictments against other insurrection leaders. Garland's procrastination helped Trump delay the prosecution against him, although it is not certain that Trump could have obtained further delays or an acquittal.

In addition to the Biden administration delaying these investigations, it failed to take some steps against a biased and corrupt court that could have. When President Richard Nixon wanted Abe Fortas, a liberal Supreme Court justice, removed from the Supreme Court, he had his Attorney General pressure Fortas. Fortas had earned a $15,000 speaking fee that he improperly reported. Nixon's Attorney General opened an investigation into Fortas and threatened to investigate Fortas' wife if Fortas did not resign. Fortas resigned. Biden and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, chose not to investigate numerous financial windfalls Justice Clarence Thomas received. Also, Garland did not investigate Thomas' wife, who had received large sums of money from right-wing organizations and may have been involved in the January 6 insurrection. Thus, Biden did not take any action to remove a justice from the Supreme Court, which has been aligned with other justices who have shown themselves to be inimical to democracy in numerous cases.

Trump won the 2016 presidential election, in part, because of disinformation. Disinformation is a process of purposely substituting lies for facts in the public's belief by simultaneously undermining the narratives supporting those facts AND the sources propagating those facts. Using the same playbook the Russians have used to undermine governments in Eastern European countries, Trump and his fascist allies have used disinformation to gain political power in the U.S. Considering how disinformation has been used, Biden should have taken every step possible to understand and counter the disinformation. Biden took some timid steps to combat disinformation. The Department of State's Global Engagement Center led and coordinated U.S. efforts to combat foreign disinformation aimed at the U.S. The Center closed on December 23, 2024, because the Republican Congress failed to reauthorize it.

Considering the failure of Biden and Democrats to hold the presidency and the Congress partly because of disinformation, the Center was clearly too little, too late. Moreover, as FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, the greatest threat to the country is coming from domestic terrorists. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas attempted to establish a Disinformation Governance Board in April of 2022 to counter disinformation related to national security, headed by Nina Jankowicz, a renowned disinformation researcher. Almost immediately, MAGA Republicana and fascist insurrectionists were heaping criticism and threats on the Board and Jankowicz. Three weeks later, Biden and Mayorkas pulled the plug on the Board. Mayorkas said that DHS could have done a better job of communicating the purpose of the Board. Regardless of how the establishment of an instrument to counter disinformation was communicated, Biden failed to fight for a critical instrument to defend the country against a primary weapon wielded by its domestic enemies—because its enemies criticized it.

There are other examples of Biden's timidity in resisting the efforts of fascist insurrectionists. First, Justice Thomas and possibly other MAGA supporters have taken questionable tax deductions without being held accountable by the government. Second, while educational and religious organizations are tax-exempt, there have been media reports that many of these organizations engage in blatant political activities without consequence by the executive branch. Third, from media reports, several MAGA leaders associates like Barry Bennett and Douglas Watts may have acted as agents for foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Whether guilty or not, investigating these MAGA members may have soured other members on their association with MAGA. Some actions by the Biden administration might have sent a message that Biden was serious in his defense of democracy.

Many explanations have been given for Biden's failure to preserve our democracy. One reason is a worldwide rebellion against the political status quo. Politicians in many countries are being defeated because voters are displeased with the political and economic conditions. And the argument is that Biden faced the backlash of this worldwide trend. However, identifying a trend does not mean understanding why it exists. And unlike the leaders of other countries, Biden's economic performance was truly outstanding. It is hard to know why voters would be displeased with Biden's economic performance. Another explanation is that Biden's age rendered him incapable of fending off the fascist insurrectionist attack. But if Biden's management of the economy had led to a positive response in the electorate, then he and Harris would have been successful.

The problem is that despite Biden's outstanding economic performance, voters were not impressed. Another explanation is that Biden was so old school he could not understand the antagonism and downright hatred of the government so many of the insurrectionists had for him, Democrats, and our democracy. A related explanation, borne out by the response of many Democrats to how they resist Trump, is that the Democratic Party lacks the spine for a stiff resistance. And Biden is, above all, a Democrat. Yet, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, to save him from the hell that he would have faced from the Trump administration. While some people feel the pardon was unjustified, premature, or over the top, I am glad Biden saved Hunter. I wish Biden had saved the rest of us, even if it meant taking some actions that would have been untoward under other circumstances.

Because of Biden's success in achieving economic programs, they want to ignore that he failed to preserve democracy. By any criteria, this was a monumental failure. While many people show no reluctance in blaming Merrick Garland for the defeat of democracy, they are reluctant to blame Biden. These people, like the rest of the Democratic Party, did not recognize or understand the danger posed by the fascist insurrectionists. They underestimated the extent to which these people were opposed to democracy and wanted a fascist government. Considering some of the statements Democratic leaders continue to make about working with Trump, I doubt if they recognize the danger even now. However, some feel that if they admit to the danger, they will have to do something and so they pretend there is no danger. Thus, they pretend that Trump is just another president, and if they treat him usually, politics and the country will return to normal. Some Democrats think that internal conflict among the fascists, MAGA, and other Trump sycophants about such things as foreign workers will destroy the movement. Also, they believe that Trump's incompetence and that of his administration will lead to the demise of this movement. Some Democrats have even suggested that the movement will wither away if Trump dies. These optimistic Democrats believe that the media like ABC, the LA Times, Washington Post, Facebook, and X will accurately report the news. I am more pessimistic about what the media will report. In any event, hope is not much of a plan.

]]><![CDATA[Biden's Supreme Court Fixes May Be Out of Reach]]>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 16:36:13 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/bidens-supreme-court-fixes-require-may-not-be-out-of-reach

President Joe Biden has proposed three remedies to stem the Supreme Court's increasing loss of credibility with the American people. First, he proposed a constitutional amendment to revoke the Court's decision, giving a former president immunity for crimes committed in office. Biden's second proposal is to reduce the term of service for Supreme Court justices from life to 18 years. And third, Biden has called for a binding code of ethical conduct for justices. Biden's plan does not acknowledge that all three remedies may also require constitutional amendments. And amending the Constitution will undoubtedly be fraught with difficulties. Biden's plan is also silent concerning some of the most troublesome aspects of the current Court, including the determination of six justices to subvert the Constitution. The difficulty of implementing Biden's plan and its omissions raises the question of whether it meant to be the beginning of an effort to solve serious problems or a way of avoiding that effort.

Limiting Supreme Court justices' terms may also require a constitutional amendment despite the many benefits of term limits. The scheme suggested to forego amending the Constitution is unlikely to persuade interested parties. Since the deliberation preceding the ratification of the Constitution, there has been general agreement that the phrase in Article III, section 2, that Supreme Court justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" means during their lifetime, except for impeachment and conviction. One idea suggested to get around the need for a constitutional amendment is establishing a new type of justice: senior justice. After eighteen years, according to a kind of scheme, justices will assume the position of senior justice with limited duties.

Biden's plan also calls for ethics reform, meaning that the Chief Justice can remove a justice from any case in which that justice has a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse himself. Along with the egregious failure of Justice Thomas to remove himself from a case in which his wife proclaimed her participation, other cases warranted justice recusal, but the judicial standard was ignored. However, the Constitution does not anticipate the forced removal of a justice by the Chief Justice. The only sanction permitted by the Constitution is impeachment and removal from the Court if convicted.

Even if the three issues identified by Biden could be fixed, his plan does not address the three most troublesome issues affecting the Court. The Court has demonstrated that it intends to remake the country using powers far beyond those envisioned by the founders. During his confirmation, for example, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the Court's role is to call balls and strikes. In critical decisions such as Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, and Chevron USA, the Court has ruled in a way that suggests a conservative bias. A second issue that should be discussed is how constrained the justices' spouses should be. For example, Chief Justice Roberts' wife has earned $10 million as a recruiter for firms seeking lawyers to practice before the Court. And the circus atmosphere of Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation raises the question of how confirmation can be reformed.

These are important issues that Democrats must address to enact the policies that they have pledged to address. Republicans, however, after securing a court that tilts in their direction, will fight hard to ensure that it is not meaningfully changed. These issues may need to be addressed through constitutional amendments. But the process of amending the Constitution is arduous. First, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must vote to propose an amendment. Or two-thirds of state legislatures can ask Congress to convene a national convention to propose amendments. Then, three-fourths of state legislatures or three-fourths of the state conventions must approve the amendments. Most people are suspicious of that route because state conventions could lead to unanticipated proposed amendments. Alternatively, the political division in this country reflected in Congress makes it nearly impossible to achieve two-thirds of the majorities in both Houses.

The Supreme Court must be fixed if Democrats want to secure the policies they have pledged to achieve. Various commentators have noted the toxic effects of some of the Court's rulings. Still, they have not recognized the implications of these and future rulings on the threat to our democracy posed by the makeup of the current Supreme Court. For example, the Court's Citizen's United ruling has allowed unlimited money in politics. And Shelby County v. Holder has repealed protections against voter suppression. As crucial as these attacks are against our democracy, their most significant import is what they say about the current makeup of the Supreme Court. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) has analyzed the Court's rulings since the beginning of Chief Justice Robert's 2005 ascension to the Court. He found that of the 73 cases decided by a 5-4 or 5-3 majority, 92 percent were decided in favor of Republican interests. Moreover, in 55 percent of the 73 cases, the conservative majority ignored conservative judicial philosophies such as stare decisis, judicial restraint, originalism, and textualism. In other words, this conservative majority will rule for the Republicans regardless of what it takes.

If the Court is not fixed, then it will be able to block any attempt by the majority of voters to move toward the society they want and democratically vote to attain. A Democratic majority in the House, a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, and the Presidency will not be able to overcome the six conservative members of the Supreme Court. Biden's plan is inadequate to overcome the Supreme Court. Biden either proposed his court reform plan as a marker or as a placebo. As a marker, Biden has given Harris and a Democratic Congress a goal to work toward with specifics to follow. As a placebo, Biden may be aware that Democrats will have no choice other than to accept the turmoil this Court will bring until enough conservatives are replaced to change the Court. With this attrition, Democrats will have issues to run on and keep the remaining federal government.

]]><![CDATA[Should Biden Quit?]]>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:15:15 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/should-biden-quit

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump -Feb. 24, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the White House. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

President Biden performed catastrophically in the first presidential debate in 2024 with former President Donald Trump. He misspoke, slurred his words, and failed to rebut the most egregious of Trump's lies. Democrats were shocked into their fallback position: looking for a candidate to replace Biden. Some Democrats began to express their belief that Biden should drop out of the race and allow another candidate to face Trump. Elected officials, donors, and other Democratic activists have expressed extreme anxiety about Biden's debate performance. They fear Biden suffers from growing senility or other conditions that would prevent him from winning the election and serving a second term. They want Biden to withdraw so that they can select another candidate.

Even if Biden's debate performance was simply a one-off event, those Democrats who believe Biden should not be the Democratic nominee point to polls showing Trump leading or tied with Biden for over a year. This trend is especially alarming to these Democrats because Biden is tied to or trailing Trump in the three critical swing states: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Replacing Biden with a candidate chosen by the party's elite has risks. Millions of people voted for Biden in the Democratic primaries. Disregarding their votes would run counter to a fundamental Democratic message: Republicans do not accept the results of free and fair elections. Democrats care about what voters want and say. Ignoring the 14 million people who voted for Biden during the primaries would undermine a critical narrative Democrats have fashioned to defeat Republicans.

Nonetheless, those Democrats who want Biden to withdraw as the nominee believe there are reasons for ignoring the results of the primaries. First, Democrats who oppose Biden argue that the polls indicated that voters wanted someone other than Biden as the nominee. And because they didn't have another primary candidate other than Biden, they might now be permitted to ignore the votes of 14 million people. Second, no one ran against Biden because Biden supporters told other potential candidates they had to support Biden and show a united front to stop Trump. Although the cumulative weight of Biden's poor poll performance was not fully manifest over a year ago, there was enough polling data to sound an alarm. Nevertheless, during the long run-up to "election season," Democrats were so exuberant about the success of the Biden-Harris administration that they were unwilling to address the issue of Biden's age.

Biden's weak showing in the polls may also be partly due to disinformation. There is a lot of disinformation surrounding Biden's cognitive health, just as there was disinformation surrounding Hillary Clinton's health. Reporters and others are now coming forward with stories about Biden's cognitive dysfunction, just as there were stories about Hillary. For example, one such Biden story is that he tells the same story repeatedly in the same conversation. Some of Biden's political opponents claimed that his capability in public and private appearances was due to his getting jacked up on performance-enhancing substances or even sugary Yahoo soda. These stories, however, confirm the role of disinformation rather than proving Biden's cognitive dysfunction. If he had such a condition, we would have heard about it before the debate. Instead, we have heard from some neutral sources that Biden was sharp and fully in command in meetings.

Relying on polling data to make decisions is often no better than flipping a coin, especially in close elections. Despite protestations by many pollsters, the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections are examples of polling misfires. Other models that claim to predict presidential elections, such as Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys, identify incumbency as a decisive aspect of presidential elections. Presumably, incumbency would be a stalemate in a contest between Trump and Biden. It should be noted that many recent elections in Europe have swung against the incumbent, except for France's

Regardless of how Biden's chances of defeating Trump are measured, two factors have raised the stakes of what a Biden defeat would mean. First, the news media has discovered the Republican plans for the U.S. as described in the Project 2025 document. While this 925-page document describing their plans for purging the U.S. Constitution and turning the country into a dictatorship is based on the long-standing Republican "unitary executive theory," its explicitness is more than frightening. At the same time, the Supreme Court handed down a decision granting presidents immunity from prosecution for all official actions. The Supreme Court ultimately determines what act is official, although selling a presidential pardon would presumably be official.

Another reason some Democrats are calling for Biden to withdraw is that after the firestorm that arose over his age, the narrative for his election has been drowned out. Of course, it is these same Democrats that have fueled the firestorm and the distraction from Biden's extensive successes. Biden's narrative is that he offered a return to normalcy, an especially potent message for a post-Trump and COVID environment. During his three-and-a-half years as President, he delivered. The economy is booming, employment is high, and crime is down. However, the more a sense of normalcy returned, the more some voters focused on the deficiencies Biden had not addressed. Deficiencies include failing to reverse inequality masquerading as inflation, failing to bolster the guardrails of our institutions, and failing to hold those who have corrupted our institutions to account. The failure to deliver on these deficiencies has allowed Trump to trumpet his pre-COVID years as the President with a relatively strong economy. And Trump lies about any deficiencies from his term in office, like a million COVID deaths.

Some opponents of Biden have failed to consider what replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee would entail. They seem to believe any younger replacement candidate would be better than Biden. A replacement nominee may not be a better candidate. A replacement candidate may have characteristics we are currently unaware of but would be mindful of during a campaign. There is not enough time to thoroughly vet an alternative to Biden. Any replacement candidate may have personal problems or lack voter appeal for a national audience. We've seen Republican examples like Scott Walker and Ron DeSantis, who initially appear to be party darlings but fall flat when there is real scrutiny.

Kamala Harris is the only realistic potential replacement nominee. But this facile solution may be short-sighted. Kamala would easily have access to the campaign apparatus, staff, and funds established by the Biden-Harris campaign. And while Kamala brings specific strengths to the head of the ticket, it is certainly not clear that she would perform better than Biden. Moreover, Harris would face the right-wing noise and disinformation machine that other Democratic candidates have faced. In 2004, a decorated war hero, John Kerry, ran against George W. Bush. Kerry's speech accepting his party's nomination was noted by Kerry saluting and saying that he was "reporting for duty." The right-wing disinformation machine attacked his war record, and Kerry lost to an incumbent who was credibly accused of having gone absent without leave for over a year. A younger candidate would not be immune from Fascist/MAGA disinformation. Trump has already increased his attacks on Kamala Harris in anticipation of her moving to the top of the ticket. And these attacks, as expected, target her race and gender. Also, it is very late for anyone other than Kamala to mount a national campaign.

As Vice President, Harris offers another strength for the Biden Harris ticket. Some Democrats who want Biden to withdraw argue that he will undoubtedly become feebler over time and is unlikely to be able to serve another four years. However, the U.S. Constitution foresaw this possibility when it provided for an office of the vice president. Harris will be more than able to complete Biden's term. This election is to save the country; if Biden accomplishes that, a President Harris on January 23 is not a loss.

Regardless of whether Biden withdraws from the race, the Democratic candidate will need our help – a lot of it. The failure to unify helps put Trump in office. A full-fledged attack is required to defeat Trump. Anyone concerned with American democracy and American stability has to work to elect Joe Biden. It is a vote for the country, not for the man.

]]><![CDATA[Republicans Happened to the Republican Party]]>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:59:53 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/republicans-happened-to-the-republican-party

Former President Donald Trump during a break as he attends trial in a civil fraud case in New York City, Oct 4, 2023. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Disaffected Republicans are fond of asking “what happened to my party?”. This question implies that their party espoused a coherent and high-minded set of principles that was upended. And these disaffected Republicans claim that Donald Trump upended their party. But they seem to have forgotten much of the Republican Party legacy. Before Trump committed crimes as president, another Republican, Richard Nixon, became a criminal serving in the White House. Like Nixon, Ronald Reagan committed serious crimes to become president and committed additional crimes once he became president. Besides the criminality of these two Republican presidents, other clues destroy the notion that the Republican Party was a noble institution until Donald Trump sullied it. Donald Trump is simply the end point of that destructive trajectory. But, unfortunately, not the end of the fascist ideology represented by Trump.

Richard Nixon and President Lyndon Johnson. LBJ Library photo by Mike Gessinger

President Richard Nixon conspired to burglarize the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate complex, abused his presidential power, and obstructed justice. These crimes were known as Watergate; they led to Nixon's resignation. His successor, Republican Gerald Ford, pardoned Nixon and thus precluded Nixon's indictment and probable conviction, forever casting doubt to the clause, “no one is above the law”. However, Nixon committed more serious crimes to become president. According to President Lyndon Johnson, Nixon committed treason.

After years of imploring the North Vietnamese to include South Vietnam in the negotiations with the U.S. to end fighting in Vietnam, a businessman alerted Johnson that Nixon feared that successful negotiations with North Vietnam would crush his chances of defeating his Democratic opponent, Hubert Humphrey. As a result, Nixon enlisted several Republican operatives to convince the South Vietnam government to refrain from participating in the negotiations until after the U.S. presidential elections. Johnson, seeking proof of Nixon's disloyalty, ordered the FBI to wiretap one of Nixon's operatives and the CIA to wiretap the office of South Vietnam's president. These wiretaps provided ironclad proof of Nixon's treachery. Because releasing the evidence would have raised questions about the propriety of wiretapping an ally, Johnson decided not to release the evidence. Nonetheless, President Johnson characterized Nixon's collaboration as treason because it quite likely needlessly cost the lives of U.S., South Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese troops as the Vietnam War ground on.

President Reagan meeting President Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office. White House Photographic Collection 1/20/1981 to 1/20/1989

Ronald Reagan also committed crimes to become president and as president. Unlike Nixon, however, the full extent of his criminality was not known until recently. Reagan was on a path to winning the presidency, but on November 4, 1979, 400 pro-Khomeini students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and imprisoned 52 embassy personnel. (Sixty-six employees were initially imprisoned; the Iranian government released 13 women and blacks and one ill white man. Six employees were outside the embassy when the students stormed it; their story was told in the movie Argo.) The American people initially rallied around Carter, and the previous downward trend in Carter's poll numbers reversed.

However, as the crisis continued over 444 days, confidence in Carter, already low, declined even further. The seizure of embassy personnel had a crippling effect on Carter's re-election bid that grew as the hostage crisis continued. This downward spiral was punctuated by a failed attempt by U.S. special forces to rescue the hostages. Nonetheless, Carter and his administration continued negotiations with the Iranians to release the embassy. The U.S. had some leverage in these negotiations because of increasing hostilities between Iran and Iraq. These hostilities would erupt into full-fledged war in September of 1980. Iran's military arsenal was based on U.S. systems, and Iran desperately needed weapons and replacement parts.

Bill Casey, Reagan’s long-time friend and campaign manager, was vociferous in his belief that if President Jimmy Carter could engineer the release of the hostages, he could still defeat Reagan. And if Casey believed this, it is unlikely that Reagan would have had a different opinion. Reagan's lead in the polls had been up and down, although Carter was trailing by the summer of 1980. Why would Reagan gamble on making a deal with the Ayatollah? Despite those concerns, Reagan had another consideration. This run for president was Reagan's third; he was 69 years old. He would almost certainly not have another opportunity to run for president again. Also, Reagan's victory would help seal right-wing supremacy in the Republican Party.

As the polls turned in Reagan's favor, Casey became more concerned about the possibility of some event derailing their expected victory. Casey became more apprehensive about an "October Surprise," an unexpected event redounding to Carter's advantage. In the summer of 1980, Casey devised a three-part plan for preventing an October Surprise. The first part consisted of establishing a committee of foreign-policy experts to monitor global events, especially those related to Iran, and alert the Reagan campaign to develop mitigation measures. The second part of the plan involved sending John Connolly, a former Texas governor, and his mentee, Ben Barnes, to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel to relay a message to the Iranian government. Casey wanted these governments to let the Iranians know that they could expect a better deal for releasing the hostages from Reagan than from Carter. Connolly and Barnes, as directed, delivered Casey's message to the Middle East leaders. And the month after returning to Texas, they met with Casey for a debriefing. The third part of Casey's plan was for him to meet in Madrid with Ayatollah Mehdi Karrubi, a high-ranking representative of the Iranian government. Until recently, there was no evidence that Casey had met in Madrid with representatives of the Iranian government. This information was hidden and only discovered recently. Shielding Casey, Reagan's close friend, also shielded Reagan. But the discovery that this meeting occurred provides more evidence of Reagan’s guilt.

Casey and Connolly's message to the Iranians was that they would receive a better deal from Reagan than Carter. This message would have resonated with Khomeini because of his hatred for Carter (Carter had supported the Shah). Reagan also offered more to release the hostages than Carter. Whatever Reagan was promising would eventually be paid by the American people. Iran was fighting a deadly war against Iraq and needed U.S. arms and replacement parts for the U.S.-equipped military the Shah had built. Because of the embargo Carter had placed on the direct sales of military equipment to Iran, Israel became a middleman for the arms sales to the Iranians. However, Reagan promised to approve the sales, continuing the US position as primary source of weapons.

Any agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran would involve commitments by the U.S. Any commitments made to Iran would be leverage the Iranians could use to pressure the U.S. to keep its deal. If Reagan had been engaged, those commitments to Iran would have been more likely fulfilled. Reagan, for example, publicly pledged to enforce the arms embargo against Iran. Even if Reagan had not been initially involved in dealing arms to Iran, it would have been nearly impossible to have fulfilled the agreement without letting him know. Reagan had promised that the U.S. would never ransom Americans held by terrorists. Yet, Reagan threatened to "call off the Iranian deal" unless the hostage, Cynthia Dwyer, the wife of Richard Allen, National Security Director's college roommate, was released by the Iranians, along with an Iranian American Rockwell International employee and three British missionaries. Ronald Reagan was directly involved in an arms-for-hostages negotiation despite his pledge not to engage in such swaps.

The circumstances of both the release of the embassy hostages and Cynthia Dwyer are strong circumstantial evidence that Reagan was involved in both arms-for-hostages deals. Reagan's inner circle members ensured his arms transfer participation was hidden. Within three months of Reagan's inauguration, his Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, gave implicit permission for Israel to ship U.S.-made military spare parts and fighter planes to Iran. The Israelis understood that the U.S. would replace the depletion of U.S. arms from Israel's stockpile to Iran.

Despite public pronouncements supporting a ban on arms sales to Iran and negotiations with terrorist groups like Hezbollah, the evidence seems clear that Reagan permitted additional arms to be sold to Iran through Israel. In 1984, when another group of hostages was seized by Hezbollah, including CIA Station Chief William Buckley, the Revs. Benjamin Weir, Lawrence Jenco, Peter Kilburn, David Jacobsen, Thomas Sutherland of American University, and Terry Anderson, an Associated Press correspondent, Reagan obtained the release of these hostages through arms sales to Iran. As bad as this later arms deal was, it was not as bad as the agreement Reagan made with the Ayatollah to stall the release of the embassy personnel. The discovery of the later arms deal seemed to be a distraction from any investigation or revelation about the delay in releasing the embassy personnel.

At the least, from the New Deal to Trump's MAGA Republicanism, the principles of conservatism have been changing. During the New Deal, conservatism was defined primarily as an anti-welfare ideology.

Ronald Reagan, father of the Republican party for the last 40 years, famously pleaded: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." We can now see that the bricks Reagan wanted torn down were the underpinning of the Republican party. The shameful acts of these Republicans are not isolated. Seen in combination, they have built a new wall crushing the American people, the American dream, and the American Constitution. So, now we plead to the American people to tear down this wall.

Given what Nixon and Reagan committed to gain the presidency, it is not surprising that Trump committed crimes to gain the presidency. Unlike the Nixon and Reagan history, however, the State of New York judicial system indicted, tried and convicted Trump for falsifying his business records to interfere with the 2016 election. Trump followed the path set by Nixon and Reagan.

Nixon, Reagan, and Trump knew they were committing crimes and vigorously sought to conceal them. Because they were candidates for the office of president, they could not claim that their actions were necessary for the country. What they did compromised the US to acquire power for themselves. More importantly, the judicial system did not hold Nixon or Reagan accountable for the crimes they committed to gain power. Thus, the judicial system could not deter a later candidate. When Republicans ask what happened to their party, they need look no further than the ruthless pursuit of power in which preceding candidates engaged.

]]><![CDATA[Trump's Election Interference Trial]]>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 23:43:55 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/trumps-election-interference-trial

Former President Donald Trump walks outside the courtroom of his trial at Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, April 30, 2024, in New York. (Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP)

Like many others, my first reaction to Trump's conviction for election interference by falsifying business records was relief that he would finally be held accountable for at least some of his criminal behavior. More importantly, I was grateful that the judiciary was performing its duty. Despite many commentators' praise for the courts, I have found their performance mixed at best. Of course, some commentators may be reluctant to criticize the courts because of the attack being launched against them by groups opposed to democracy, like MAGA Republicans. While the federal courts have held January 6 terrorists to account, the Supreme Court, federal Judge Aileen Cannon, and Fulton County Scott McAfee have been disgraceful in granting delays and other favorable treatment to Trump.

Regardless of how we feel about the courts' performance in general, I have two observations about the impact of this trial. On one level, this court presided over jury selection, evidence presentation, and Trump's conviction. Although Trump's defense team made numerous objections intended to derail the trial, none were sustained. Of the 12 jurors (and six alternates) selected, Trump's defense team only objected to one juror. Judge Merchan examined this juror further and overruled the objection. The prosecution called 20 witnesses against Trump and the defense, while the defense called two witnesses. One of the defense's witnesses, Robert Costello, had parts of his testimony undermining Cohen refuted when the prosecution introduced emails contradicting him. Costello's testimony may have backfired and helped the prosecution. Although Trump could have testified, he chose not to refute any of the evidence presented against him. His defense team did not think his testimony would have been credible. After deliberating nine and a half hours, the jury convicted Trump of the 34 charges against him.

On another level, however, this trial has been the fodder for disinformation intended to elevate Trump to the presidency. Specifically, the purpose of spreading disinformation about our legal system is to disrupt it so that it will not be able to hold Trump and his followers accountable. The right-wing media, Republican officeholders, and Trump himself spread disinformation about the trial and lies about the judge, prosecutors, and the trial itself. Nearly every aspect of Trump's trial became the basis for disinformation. When Judge Merchan ordered Trump to stop vilifying witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their families, and his family, Trump enlisted surrogates to continue the slander. Numerous elected Republican officials attended court sessions, dressed in dark suits and wearing red ties, to slander the people Trump was ordered to stop slandering.

Donald Trump with Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, in a 2006 photo uploaded to her Myspace.com account.

Even though the Justice Department prosecuted and convicted Michael Cohen for the same election interference that Trump was being tried for, these disinformation spreaders insist that no prosecutable crime has been committed. Trump's supporters cite numerous reasons why Trump should be exempt from prosecution. They complain that the meeting with the adult actress Stormy Daniels occurred over 15 years ago. Thus, Trump's supporters claim the only reason Trump is being tried now must be political. Of course, to some degree, every time a prosecutor decides to seek an indictment, he makes a political decision. Prosecutors consider a conviction's likelihood and a sentence's deterrent effect. A jury found him guilty regardless of why prosecutors decided to pursue this case against Trump.

Trump was named an accomplice in the same crime for which Cohen was convicted in 2018. The failure to try Trump earlier resulted, in part, from his of the Department of Justice's internal prohibition against indicting a sitting president. Also, Attorney General William Barr, appointed by Trump subverted charges being bought against Trump. Cohen, along with Enquirer publisher David Pecker conspired to interfere in the 2016 election by suppressing information about Trump's sexual associations with two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. This information would have had double its usual impact because it came on the tail-end of another shocking story of Trump’s sexual behavior. A recording of Trump referring to women in highly inappropriate language and explaining his sense of entitlement to sexually violate women was released, causing significant members of his party to call for his withdrawal from the 2016 election.

Another allegation made by Trump and his followers is that he was convicted on the testimony of a liar, Michael Cohen, and salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels that was prejudicial. The prosecution relied primarily on other witnesses and documentary evidence to corroborate Cohen's testimony. Also, the judge's instructions prohibited the jury from returning a guilty verdict based only on Cohen's uncorroborated testimony. While parts of Daniel's testimony were salacious, Trump's defense team introduced the prurient testimony. Trump's defense tried to denigrate Daniels because of her profession. Most observers opined that the defense team would have been better served if it had simply ascertained that she had no first-hand knowledge about the charges Trump faced. Although Trump and his followers claim he could not introduce the witnesses he wanted, the judge did not prevent him from calling any witnesses; and he also could have testified.

Trump accused Judge Merchan of having a conflict of interest in his case. The apparent basis of this charge was that Merchan contributed $35 to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016 and that his adult daughter worked as a Democratic fundraiser. Of course, in true Trump fashion, he had earlier claimed that he’d once given to Hillary Clinton too. However, many commentators believe the real reason Trump attacked Merchan and his family is Merchan's heritage as a Colombian immigrant. Trump has had a history of attacking authorities whose heritage is Latino, although he has praised another judge of Latino heritage, Aileen Cannon who was born in
Columbia to a Cuban mother.

Most ominously, some of Trump's followers have accused Judge Merchan of presiding over a show trial. These Trump followers undoubtedly understand that show trials were held in communist Russia under Stalin's regime. Show trials were not held for fact-finding or dispensing justice. Instead, they were held to purge people the state had decided were undesirable because of their politics or ethnicity. The outcomes of show trials were, of course, predetermined. Above all, show trials were events about which disinformation explained why the state had proscribed the defendant.

The outcome of Trump's trial was not predetermined or known. Trump had every opportunity to defend himself. And like all defendants in our legal system, he had the right to make serious errors in his defense. A jury of his peers found him guilty, although his verdict does not mean he will serve even one day in prison. Nonetheless, Trump and his followers will persist in using this trial to spread disinformation about the legal system. They are not interested in justice but in disrupting our institutions to seize power. The relief I first felt was short-lived.

]]><![CDATA[Did Michael Cohen Steal $30,000 from Donald Trump?]]>Fri, 24 May 2024 01:43:46 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/did-michael-cohen-steal-30000-from-donald-trump

Donald Trump with Michael Cohen in 2006. (Obtained by The Washington Post)

A critical element in Donald Trump's hush money trial is whether the $420,000 Trump paid to Cohen in twelve $35,000 checks was Cohen's salary or reimbursement for money Cohen paid on behalf of Trump. According to the prosecution, these twelve checks were mostly a reimbursement for money that Cohen had paid to keep porn star Stormy Daniels quiet about her sexual encounter with Trump. The prosecution's proof for explaining the money is a worksheet (Exhibit 35) with handwritten notes by Trump's Chief Financial Officer, Alan Weisselberg.

Michael Cohen, seen here during a break in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in October 2023. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

This note shows that (A) $130,000 was wired to Keith Davidson Associated on 10/27 (Stormy Daniels' attorneys); (B) $50,000 paid to Red Finch for Technical Services; (C) $180,000 "grossed up" to $360,000; (D) $60,000 for a bonus; and a total of (E) $420,000. Cohen says that he paid Red Finch $20,000 for phony poll results for Trump, although he claimed that these services to Red Finch cost $50,000. In other words, Cohen admitted to stealing $30,000 from Trump. It is also important to note that the prosecution and Cohen maintain that $180,000 is "grossed up" or doubled so that Cohen would not "lose" $90,000 to taxes because Cohen was in the 50 percent tax bracket. The note does not show a $60,000 bonus for Cohen being grossed up, presumably because employers do not pay employee taxes.

Alternatively, Trump's defense team claims that the entire $420,000 represents Cohen's salary for legal services. Their most compelling support for this claim is that it is approximately what his salary was the previous year. There is a severe problem with the defense's argument. If $420,000 is Cohen's salary, then Cohen could not have stolen $30,000. One cannot steal one's salary! Yet, the defense is contradicting their primary defense of Trump.

]]><![CDATA[Our Shadow Presidency]]>Tue, 21 May 2024 01:04:26 GMThttp://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/our-shadow-presidencyBy Guest Contributors: Burton Blistein and Brigitte Savage

Donald Trump. (Photo by Chet Strange/Getty Images)

It is clear that Donald Trump, not President Biden, controls many of our most critical domestic and international decisions. The border issue cannot be solved because Trump does not want it solved. We cannot supply essential aid to Ukraine because Trump does not want it supplied. If in the future Ukraine is funded such funding must, according to Trump, take the form of a loan. (The nation defending the West with its blood and territory must pay for that privilege!) The Senate cannot appropriate funds unless the House agrees; and the House is clearly subservient to Trump. Trump does not control the presidency, but the president cannot act without the cooperation of the branches that Trump does control. Biden confirmed this and Trump’s supremacy when he twice asked Trump’s assistance to resolve the border issue.

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

To this we must add that the Supreme Court has surrendered to Trump by refusing to address the genuine constitutional issues that would prohibit his candidacy and by deliberately delaying a decision that would enable Trump’s trial for violating the constitution to proceed before the election.  The Justices redefined the case before them so that the issue became whether Colorado was entitled to bring it, rather than whether Trump’s rebellion against the Constitution prohibited his candidacy, as in fact it clearly did.  Both liberal and conservative justices appear to have concurred in this strategy. Their argument that such a momentous decision should be left to the electorate is contradicted by their decision to slow-walk Trump’s immunity claim and so possibly defer his trial until after the election, thus depriving the voters of the critical information they would need to choose wisely. How are we to account for such behavior, which appears to transcend political and philosophical differences and violates common sense?
Trump has carefully recruited and nurtured an army of thugs committed to making life impossible for those who oppose him.  They have intimidated members of Congress, many of whom privately admit that they fear for themselves and for their families. Trump has made it a practice to include the judiciary among those certain victims. Members of the Supreme Court must have been aware that, should they prevent Trump’s candidacy as the Constitution required, they would have been forever subject to the vicious predations of his devoted minions, and indeed would become their primary targets. There was, accordingly, virtually no chance that they would have denied his candidacy. Trump subsequently thanked the Justices publicly, indicating that because of their submission they need not fear his wrath or that of his followers. The Court’s unnecessary delay adjudicating Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity figures as another similarly motivated submissive gesture on Trump’s behalf. The Court thus committed us to a course in which the very rule of law is threatened while itself affording the chief example of why and how this occurred. One must assume that like considerations, plus perhaps hope of advancement, dictate Judge Cannon’s otherwise inexplicable behavior.
In sum, with respect to the issues that concern him Trump effectively controls two of the three branches of government. Those who warn us that our votes will determine whether we will live in a democracy in the future or in a dictatorship are therefore wrong. That “future” is our present.
The press actively contributes to this sorry state of affairs when they speak of the “new normal” or use similar terms to describe Trump’s depredations. They thus “train” the public to accept those abominations and ignore their truly horrific consequences.
The gravity of our current situation requires first, that the government and press acknowledge it, and second decisive action by Biden to restore the balance. He should not seek accommodation with Trump or those beholden to him. He should use his remaining powers to shut down the border if that proves necessary and his drawdown authority to immediately channel essential weapons to the Ukrainians.  He must demonstrate that he, not Trump, is in charge and seek every opportunity to do so.  Currently, the “optics” are very bad for Biden.  Notwithstanding Congress’s delay in acting, he has managed to continue to supply Israel with the weapons to kill thousands yet has been languid in supplying the most advanced weapons for Ukraine to defend itself against an unprovoked attack, resulting in the deaths of thousands.
Trump has deliberately created a climate of fear. To this he owes much of his power. We urge a task force devoted to dealing specifically with Trump’s domestic terrorism, which is much more diffuse, prevalent, transparent, and dependent upon the internet than that of foreign adversaries.  We hear a great deal about threats to individuals by Trump’s followers, but very little about the apprehension of those who make such threats. That must change if we are to restore confidence in the rule of law. Should Trump lose the election we can expect a significant increase in the nefarious activity of his minions. We must be prepared for this. A task force such as that described would clearly help and define and make explicit for the voters the importance of the issues confronting them.

]]>