A reader asked me to analyze the statutory and constitutional tools that could and should be used to fight Trumpism now that Trumpism has been irrefutably revealed for what it is: Fascism. Having studied for decades the interactions between constitutional law and constitutional politics, I actually have some expertise on this topic. That experience does not mean any recommendations are “right answers,” particularly because there are so many competing ends and thus competing means. Hopefully, my training provides reasonably acute analysis. The following is predicated on publicly available facts; we may soon learn of more seditious acts that justify far more severe sanctions.

Before evaluating particular options, we need to determine the scope of the problem, rank desired outcomes, and sort them by time (short term, intermediate term, and long term).

First, how serious is this threat to the Republic? Over the past few years, I would occasionally come across polls indicating that a vast, growing number of Americans no longer believed in democracy. They want a “strong leader,” unencumbered by Congress, the media, or Courts. Alas, my response consisted of more denial than fear: Most of those people didn’t really mean it. Large anti-democratic factions are on both sides, so neither side is very dangerous. They won’t act, either out of fear or lack of conviction. Most Americans don’t like domestic violence. The polls are probably wrong. This is just macho Locker Room or Chapel talk. Those thoughts somewhat calmed an underlying dread that our Nation was in a downward spiral.

The World Values Survey published in 2017 a poll stating that 38 percent of Americans support an unchecked leader. This movement had grown from 24 percent in the mid-1990s to 29 percent in the early 2000s. The number may be greater now, but we can hope this tragedy has enabled some people to change their minds. I could not find a good poll indicating the different political ideologies of these anti-democrats, but my current guess is almost all are Fascists. Remember how bewildered many of us were at Trump’s ability to keep his approval ratings above 35 percent no matter what he did? Trump, who often said he wanted to be “President for Life,” either knew those numbers or instinctively sensed his opportunity. He really meant that he would not support a peaceful transfer of power. Trumpism is not just a temporary, freakish cult of personality; it is a potentially fatal political movement that long predates Trump’s rise to power.

The attempted coup on January 6 proved that neither Trump nor his most devout followers were play-acting. We can add Fascism to our exploding list of existential threats. Incidentally, while those poll numbers should not be admitted in a court of law, they confirm the odious intentions of Trump, his enablers, and many of his followers when they assaulted the Capitol. The only Legal Vote is a Republican Vote. The only Legal Party is the Republican Party. If you assume those principles, the election was stolen.

Fortunately, many Republicans disagree. Some Republican House and Senate members have indicated that they will vote for impeachment. Mitch McConnell strongly intimated that he wants the President impeached. State Republican officials did not succumb to Trump’s relentless public and private pressuring. I never thought I would write that Governor Kemp of Georgia acted heroically. Right now, we must build upon this burgeoning bipartisan response. Maybe this crisis provides us with the chance to make a few sorely needed legislative changes to improve our political economy, address some of our systemic social injustices, and better protect our environment.

The stakes could not be much higher, so we must think very clearly. We can’t let “hot emotions” like revenge and fierce partisanship cloud judgment. It is time to act like a lawyer or a Machiavellian politician, using cooler passions to cripple this political movement, which long predates Trump and is not going away soon. We must drive these cretins back into their holes, where they can grumble about their inability to impose their totalitarian, often religiously inspired visions on the rest of us.

SHORT TERM ENDS AND MEANS

Until Biden becomes President, Trump can start a nuclear war, plot against the Inauguration, start a conventional war with a country like Iran, attempt assassinations of foreign opponents, declare martial law, and/or foment another rebellion. Obviously, he should resign. But that will never happen. Once he leaves office, he plans to run for Dictator in 2024.

Given these horrifying stakes, it is easy to conclude that Pence and the Cabinet should use the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove this unstable idiot savant. But there is one crucial fact that we do not presently know: Have they already cut off Trump’s hands? Is Pence currently the real President of the United States? General Milley, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, might still politely answer Trump’s calls, treating him like a rich mental patient, but should only be taking orders from Pence. Trump can fondle his nuclear “football,” but the launching code has been turned off.

If Trump has been stripped of all meaningful power, then Pence’s unwillingness to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is not an outrageous dereliction of duty. Forcing Trump out of office will enrage the dangerous part of his dwindling base, increasing the likelihood of imminent violence. But if Trump retains any power over the use of force, Pence and other leading Republicans failed, risking all our lives.

For the moment, let’s give Pence the benefit of the doubt. Pence’s admirable performance on January 6 reveals that many Evangelicals believe in democracy. Not all Evangelicals are members of Vanilla ISIS (Super kudos to the person who coined that phrase). We must create a new, broad movement of Constitutional Americans, consisting of all Americans who still believe in democracy.

A military coup is the final short-term protection against Trump monstrosities. Fortunately, our military leadership firmly stated that Biden will be President in a few days. If Trump tries to do something outrageous, the military will probably stop him, install Pence, and withdraw after Biden becomes President. The Proud Boys and a few rogue cops won’t stand a chance against the United States Marines.

Everything else takes too long. Congress should have immediately conducted a Zoom Impeachment and conviction, but that moment has passed. Legislatures are generally incapable of reacting quickly, a trait is a strength and a weakness.

1. INTERMEDIATE TERM

We cannot let this conflict distract us from starting to address the underlying forces that caused it to arise. We must provide more hope and opportunities to average citizens, giving them reasons to be loyal. Aside from the incorrigible Fascists, there are millions of voters and nonvoters who think our system has become corrupt and unresponsive. Machiavelli wrote that a republic can be the strongest form of government, because it takes the best care of its citizens. He also warned that corruption was the greatest internal threat. Democrats need to act boldly, hoping some Republicans join them. Politics as Usual will guarantee more Unusual Politics in the future. Some Democrats would like to use this event as an excuse to do very little, thereby pleasing their wealthy patrons.

On the other hand, it is vital to act firmly against Trump, his enablers, and his most violent followers. This is not the time to simply “move on.” Strength is the only thing these Fascists admire and fear. In terms of legal sanctions, we must separate insurrection leaders and the most violent from their sympathizers. Economic and social sanctions are also appropriate. Private companies should never support leaders like Cruz and Hawley. Coup participants ought to be fired. Boycott companies that give money to men like Cruz or advertise on Fox Television unless it stops spewing its toxic nonsense. It may be years before one has Thanksgiving Dinner with crazed Uncle Ralphie.

Impeachment seems like the best tactic to immediately punish the President. Above all, it will be bipartisan. Several leading Congressional officials, including Liz Cheney, have already committed. McConnell probably will join Romney, Sasse, and others in the Senate. The incoming Senate may well convict him. Stripping Trump of his federal benefits and any opportunity to run for federal office will be provocative, but his fans already think he is a martyr. He remains a unique threat, because of his long history of celebrity, his Presidency, and his strange, telegenic charisma. There will be more Fascist aspirants to the Presidency, but few have his twisted skillset.

Of course, if it turns out that Trump and his minions actively planned the attempted coup and supported it by stripping Congress of police protection, then there are additional grounds for criminal charges and impeachment (Right now, Congress should also impeach him for failure to act once the coup began).

One advantage of this horrible tale is that we now know the names of many of our enemies (sadly, that is what they are). Anyone who continued to support Trump’s Big Lie after the coup is presumptively anti-democratic. Thus, the Gang of Six in the Senate and the Congressional rabble in the House have effectively become a dangerous, separate political party. McConnell and Cheney, two tough Republicans who are not afraid of a fight, have already begun the Republicans’ civil war.

While Democrats need Republican allies to combat Trumpism and to deal with pressing political problems, they also should use this opportunity to drive a wedge through the Party’s existing heart. Just as the chaos surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention signified the beginning of the end of the New Deal Democratic coalition, it is time to fracture the Republican Party. Fortunately, McConnell, Pence, and Cheney are patriotic enough to finally put country above party. You can certainly argue they took too long, but better late than never.

The Republican Party must clean its stables. Supporting impeachment is just a start. At a minimum, Cruz and Hawley should be permanently kicked out of the Party. The other four Senators and the hundred-plus House members ought to be given a chance to apologize, admit they promoted a big lie, and vote for impeachment. Otherwise, they are also out.

Should Congress use the Fourteenth Amendment or the Expulsion Clause to purge their dangerous colleagues? Assuming there was no direct Congressional collaboration with the invaders, those moves would create a dangerous precedent, making it far easier for future Fascists to create a one party system of government. Better to leave the leaders’ fates to Republican colleagues, donors, and voters. Hawley and Cruz achieved their desire to be remembered in history, joining such luminaries as Benedict Arnold and Jefferson Davis.

Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Expulsion should be pursued unless we find that some Congressional members clearly and actively conspired with the invaders. Expulsion is slightly better than the Fourteenth Amendment, because it requires a two-thirds vote. Congress usually cannot expel members unless there is some bipartisan support. A bare majority cannot purge its opposition. But it is very likely that any expulsion vote based upon what was said in Congress would pretty much proceed on party lines, reaggravating partisanship at the very moment that we desperately need bipartisanship.

The Fourteenth Amendment seems applicable, because we witnessed something resembling an “insurrection,” the event that triggers the federal power to remove seditious federal office holders. Of course, The Civil War was a classic example. However, it is not clear that Congress can act unilaterally. The Supreme Court has already appropriately held that Congress violates separation of powers whenever it adjudicates individual cases (aside from impeachment). Arguably, Congress must pass appropriate legislation under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to empower Article III Courts and juries to determine whether or not Congressional leaders like Cruz and Hawley committed “insurrection.” Even if the Supreme Court holds that Congress has the power to remove these scoundrels by a mere majority, a Congressional purge creates a dangerous precedent. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment is a worse path than Expulsion since it might only require a majority to reconstitute Congress.

Until the failed coup, I was inclined to conclude that Trump should not be sent to prison for the crimes we know he committed. Whatever else you want to say about Bill Barr, he did the country a great service last year when he did not indict Biden or Obama. “Lock her up” or “Lock him up” are disturbing, divisive chants. My wariness extended to state criminal charges. Imprisonment would be too divisive and set a terrible precedent. It would be hard to get a conviction, because at least one silent Trumpster would probably sit on any jury.

I am no longer so sure about such restraint. In addition, there may be other, even worse crimes that will be revealed after Trump leaves office. Perhaps this fraught decision should be made after our political life settles down a bit and his popularity hopefully drops quite a bit. For quite a long time, I am going to be as interested in anti-democracy polls as Republican-Democrat polls.

On the other hand, state and federal officials should aggressively pursue all possible civil and criminal fraud cases against Trump, his sleazy family, and grifter associates. If they are guilty, they should be fined to the maximum extent permitted by law. We also can wish success to all the private plaintiffs, ranging from Michael Cohen to violated women, who seek damages from this predator. Punitive damages seem particularly appropriate in all possible situations.

At a bare minimum, there needs to be a thorough, public review of his Presidency. Truth and Reconciliation for his followers, Truth and Non Reconciliation for Trump and his most dangerous enablers.

None of the Congressional authoritarians should be indicted unless they directly collaborated with the attackers. Representative Mikkie Sherrill claims to have seen Republican lawmakers giving “tours” to rioters one day before the attack. If they did conspire in advance to terrorize Congress and thus the People, those acts are not vague, political crimes. They should be locked up. The same applies if there was a conspiracy to not protect the Capitol.

While almost all the rabble who invaded the Capitol were guilty of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, we should focus on their leaders and the most egregious and flamboyant actors. The murderers of Officer Sicknick should face manslaughter charges, at a minimum.

LONGTERM GOALS

Two questions framed the first third of the Twenty-First Century: Would the human race learn to control its desires enough to preserve the planet for itself and other species? Would the United States gracefully accept the inevitable decline in its relative power?

The rise of Fascism in America, based in significant part upon denial of climate change, shows that we are off to a terrible start. Perhaps we can build a new political ideology out of the wreckage, a viewpoint that attracts an enduring supermajority. The Fascists and Left-Wing purists won’t be happy, but that would be a clear sign we are on the right path.

A few years ago, I was talking to a thoughtful checkout person at a Whole Foods. After the usual commiseration about the state of our society, he asked me what he should do next. I replied, “Read good books.” One of the main goals of this newsletter is to demonstrate the utility and pleasure of reading of good books.

[Editor’s note: This article was reprinted, with permission, from James Wilson’s newsletter: hopebutnoexpectations@substack.com ]

The post Time to Act: But what are the crucial goals? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

President Trump began his Presidency by falsely asserting that his Inaugural crowd was larger than Obama’s, a claim easily refuted by comparing aerial photographs of the two groups. Trump’s ridiculous claim was the first step in his goal of reconfiguring our fractured political stage into a tragic farce. Instead of one “Big Lie,” he bludgeons us with non-stop fraud that generates disorientation, demoralization, and dangerous polarization.

One might think that Trump’s blatant contempt for obvious facts would undermine his legitimacy, but systemic lying is a very effective tool for consolidating political power.

Lies enable a leader to quickly assess the political landscape. Supporters demonstrate their fealty by ignoring their senses, attacking those who maintain the truth. Opponents gleefully seize upon apparent blunders, revealing the nature and extent of their opposition. Their bewildered outrage polarizes the populace even more, facilitating the elite’s enduring strategy of “divide and conquer.” Many in the so-called middle lie low, out of indifference, ambivalence about both sides, or knowing that any public expression entangles them in an increasingly disgusting culture.

In other words, systemic dishonesty serves as a political sorting hat, similar to the magic hat that assigned new students to the appropriate house in the Harry Potter novels.

This sorting extends far beyond the three basic political categories of support, opposition, and quietude. Lies enable the leader to more easily determine particular roles for supporters. Some are aware of the deceptions, but suppress any reaction because honesty interferes with their ideological goals and personal ambitions. Because they also are not very interested in the truth, they can easily adapt when the leader redefines reality in another direction. The ends justify the means.

These people are extremely important, because they are in contact with reality but consider it subordinate to other purposes. A select few may be permitted to join the leader in laughter about the masses’ gullibility.   Aside from everything else, the leader and his coterie get pleasure out of manipulating the masses, watching the populace totally defer not only to beliefs but also to facts.

When the leader acts badly, it is easy for the fervent to not only tolerate the leader’s dishonesty but also to lie in support.  They have already compromised themselves by accepting so much nonsense. For example, some Republicans have promoted a seemingly irrelevant, arcane distinction between “shithole” and “shithouse,” as if labeling struggling countries as “shithouses” would somehow exonerate the President from charges of racism and boorish behavior. Others use euphemisms, such as “strong language,” thereby propping up Trump’s image of weird virility.

Another group remains deferential because they want more hierarchy than currently exists and/or they prefer some of the leader’s policies more than competing alternatives. Senator Lindsey Graham revealed insufficient devotion by telling the truth and even criticizing the President for the “shithole” remark. He probably won’t be golfing with Trump for quite a while, where Trump compulsively reasserts his dominance by openly cheating. Meanwhile, the inner circle of courtiers will mock Graham for his naiveté.

Many other followers believe almost every lie. They are useful idiots (pardon the cliché, but it has enduring value). They virulently turn on anyone who doubts any aspect of the leader’s vision. After all, they have made a quasi-religious leap of faith by allowing their leader to define a reality that transcends facts. They keep the movement’s doubters and hustlers in line while intimidating opponents with their fanaticism.

Others just don’t care, so long as their leader protects their interests. They believe they will do better than those who lie low or remain in opposition. Many oligarchs gleefully support an authoritarian who enriches them until they are suddenly thrown in jail for “corruption.”

Overall, institutionalized lying reinforces rigid hierarchy by converting political movements into quasi-religious cults of personality. The leader is a god-like figure who has overcome history. Lying turns the inherently tribal nature of partisan politics into a cauldron of mutual contempt and intolerance. Followers despise opponents for lack of respect. The opposition considers the supporters to be craven, deranged, or stupid.

While it would be profoundly inaccurate to claim moral equivalence between the two major Parties, it is important to observe that the Democratic Party has a different cluster of mandatory narratives. But at least so far, that Party’s moral failings typify politics within any democratic regime. Democratic leaders break promises, misdirect people, create their own set of “politically correct” litmus tests, and suppress important facts. But they don’t base their positions on facts that can be so easily refuted.

People will always disagree about predictions (What are the human effects on climate chaos?), opinions (Is Trump racist?), and policies (Should poor children receive health care or wealthy people more tax cuts?).  But when there is no common understanding about the factual world we share, there is far less likelihood of creating the necessary common ground for political understanding and even compromise. Quite frankly, I don’t know how to talk to someone who still` believes Trump had a larger crowd than Obama or that Obama is a Muslim. And that is just the way Trump and his elite supporters want it.

The post Leaders Who Lie: The Sorting Hat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Two frightening historical questions faced our species at the beginning of the 21st Century. Would humanity accelerate its compulsive consumption to the point of environmental collapse, even extinction?  More provincially, would the United States graciously accept its relative decline in global power or would it prefer a cult of international and domestic violence?

Donald Trump’s Presidency has reduced the likelihood of a good answer to either question. It is hard to be sure about Donald Trump’s long-term aspirations, because he is such a disorienting blend of fool, knave, and madman. He turned his staggering ignorance and anti-intellectualism into a badge of twisted honor. His willingness to insult anyone and blatantly lie has made him a perpetual source of late-night comic jokes that resemble campfire horror stories more than political satire. His willingness to rip off contractors and to promote his tawdry family brand demonstrates that unbridled greed is a major motivator. Alas, there are worse things than greedy leaders like the Trumps (or the Clintons, for that matter). Crazy people and fanatics become so involved in their overwrought narratives that they become dangerously unstable and unpredictable, threats to themselves and others. Trump’s impulsive, erratic behavior is self-evident. During the campaign he wondered why the United States has nuclear weapons but doesn’t use them. Nuclear war could result from a moment of sleep deprivation, boredom, pique, or desire to improve poll ratings. At such a moment, Trump would join Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other mass murderers in the great, ever-expanding pantheon of evil. Of course, if you believe that the most important thing is getting attention, what else matters?

We have witnessed enough of his behavior to assume something close to the worst. While one can grimly hope that there is some decency and restraint in the White House, we should tentatively conclude that Trump seeks to destroy our republic and put himself in charge. If wrong, we can always apologize for overreacting. Perhaps someday the most fearful of us may seem something like those on the Alt-Right who claimed that President Obama was going to round up opponents and put them in FEMA camps. But there are a lot more facts supporting current fears, the most obvious of which is that Trump currently has vast Presidential power and Obama is a private citizen who maintained basic democratic traditions.

Here are a few more grisly, well-known facts. Trump said he could shoot someone in Times Square and his supporters would stand by him. He encouraged people to rough up opponents at rallies, even suggesting he would pay for legal expenses (Good luck on that!). He posted a doctored video of his knocking down a person with a CNN logo superimposed on that actor’s head. He admires such political criminals as Putin as well as recently triumphant authoritarians like Turkey’s Erdogan and The Philippines’s Duterte. All those cretins rose to power by using private and public violence to eliminate and intimidate opposition. In the Philippines, the police have murdered over 20,000 people for alleged illegal drug activity. Predictably, this mass murder included political opponents. Erdogan recently proposed that “traitors” be beheaded.

The desperate hope was that Trump merely had an autoerotic fantasy about violence, similar to the delights many of us get by watching a Terminator movie or a hard-played football game. In other words, a neurotic bully who just liked to talk tough. But his response to the horrific events at Charlottesville reinforces the dread that Trump seeks to destroy our democracy by using private violence to eradicate dissent. Hitler never could have risen to power or maintained power without his Nazi Party thugs. To seize and maintain power, authoritarians must kill dissenters and journalists, creating the ultimate “chilling effect” on free speech and free press. By equating Nazis and other racists with their opponents and equating street scuffling with murder, Trump once again sent a message to his most venal followers that he wants more domestic terror, not less. He should have said that we will often ferociously disagree, but we should never kill one another over political disputes. At that point, the criminal becomes a terrorist. The Justice Department should immediately bring terrorism charges against the killer. Given Trump’s track record on domestic political violence, his equivocation in the face of political murder, which must be the brightest of moral bright lines, should be interpreted as implied endorsement of future killings.

Yet there remain reasons for hope. This country has powerful democratic traditions and institutions. Not only most of the corporate media and Democrats, but also many Republicans said Trump violated basic moral standards. His poll numbers have resumed their downward spiral. Virginia indicted the white supremacy terrorist for killing Ms. Heather Heyer.

That last point about Virginia’s criminal charges is worth exploring a bit more. Despite their many flaws, the Framers of the Constitution created the framework for a political system that has proved remarkably resilient. Structurally, it allocates political power to many people. In other words, the Framers did not create a monopoly over public power, particularly public coercive power. States’ Rights, often a source of injustice, can be one of our best protections if Trump finds enough minions to run the federal government, immunizing all those “good people” who wear Nazi paraphernalia and shout anti-Semitic slogans. Trump may be able to pardon the cruel “Sheriff Joe” for flagrantly defying a federal court order, but Trump cannot prevent States from throwing Brownshirt wannabees in jail for violent crimes they commit. Thus, we must elect responsible state officials and hold them accountable if they fail to uphold the rule of law.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine congratulated a workman for scratching out the “T” on a “Trump” sticker on his car, leaving “rump” in its place. The young man replied that he was a supporter of Trump and needed to replace the sticker. One of us then expressed contempt for Trump. He replied, “Well, we all have a right to our own opinion.” That, folks, is the common ground that we cannot let this President destroy.

May the premeditated murder of Heather Heyer be the worst moment in this wave of domestic political terrorism, the instant when the vast majority of Americans saw they had so much to lose by bloodying their streets to curry favor with autocrats or fanatics of any political persuasion. May this moment resemble Kent State, a political massacre that led many people to retreat from escalating polarization. But whatever happens, my heart aches for Ms. Heyer’s family.

The post Fears and hopes after Charlottesville appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Because the last election was so filled with lies, hate, fear, and hypocrisy, culminating in the election of an unstable, needy man who rose to power by promoting the Big Lie of President Obama’s not being an American citizen, it is easy to go off the rails.  One is tempted to withdraw or become intoxicated by rage.

While every person should choose the path that appears most beneficial to oneself and others, here are a few thoughts about surviving the continuing turmoil.

Assume that the next two years will be a domestic political disaster

So far, the good news is that Trump’s connections to Putin make him vulnerable to Congressional investigations and that he has not inspired many people beyond his existing base. Think how bad you would feel if his approval ratings were at sixty percent instead of a bit over forty percent. Nonviolent political opposition has made a difference.

At best, we will avoid the domestic catastrophe of authoritarianism and the international cataclysm of major wars against powerful countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.  So long as the People, Congress, Courts, and media retain enough power to protect our shared, core republican rights to personal freedom, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the vote, we have time to transmute our corroded Republic into a force that overcomes the growing threat of environmental catastrophe as effectively as it battled totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century.

 Decide how much daily information you need

For the past few weeks, I have rarely read or watched anything political. Bad news still travels fast. Friends and family members  informed me about Ryan’s proposed heath care plan, the latest example of the brutal class war consistently won by the rich. While it is worthwhile to periodically peer into the belly of the beast to understand the gravity of our situation, one can rot by spending too much time there. When you react to every Tweet, you may end up dancing to someone else’s twisted tune. It is particularly important to avoid trolls’ commentary, because it tends to make you despise the often-deluded followers as much as their ruthless leaders. It is as upsetting to read that every Trump voter is a racist as it is to be told that liberals don’t care about their country.

Participate, if you can

Fortunately, there are many tough and brave souls who document and analyze daily atrocities.  Many admirable people have decided to commit their lives, if only for a while, to political organizing and dissent. The Tea Party showed the value of attending Congressional town halls and making life uncomfortable for those politicians who hold millions of our fellow Americans in so much contempt that they don’t care if those vulnerable, younger people suffer from horrific disease and premature death. Right now, I don’t have the will to be part of such discord. If you are at Standing Rock, thank you. Please avoid violence’s temptation.

Perhaps, for one reason or another, you can’t be a political hero right now. Maybe you tried to join a local political group but were repelled by the unrepentant smugness of Identity Politics. You observed how the traditional Left increases Trump’s divisive power by demanding complete compliance with an existing litmus test that has failed to create the broad political majority needed to shift our society in the right direction. Furthermore, people often turn very competitive when participating in politics: they jostle for attention and position. Politics is an inherently hierarchical occupation. Do you really want to hear a bunch of platitudes before being assigned to lick envelopes?

Or maybe one of your children is ill and you don’t have time and money. Why feel self-aversion when encountering one of the most challenging spiritual practices imaginable? Furthermore, there are other, equally valid ways to rebuild our shattered community aside from partisan politics.  Join a church, participate in a book club, feed the homeless, joke with a stranger, go dancing.  They want us to be atomized and disorganized, satisfied with whatever consumer goods we can get.

This is a particularly dangerous time to withdraw completely from politics

Waiting to vote in 2020 is not enough. That single gesture has little influence. Nor is a check for 200 dollars very important when the billionaires and their corporate media determine most of the content within the public arena. Demonstrations are influential, but temporary phenomena.

The one percent commitment

So what is to be done by those of us who can’t or won’t commit to political immersion? You can vow to spend one week in the fall of 2018 helping Democrats win contested Congressional and local elections. Donate one percent of your time to reduce the power of the One Percent. Perhaps you can take a driving vacation to some place like suburban Ohio, upstate New York, or Texas.  You commit to six or more hours a day registering voters, driving voters to polls, and licking those damn envelopes. During time off, explore the community, perhaps with some new friends.  If enough of us work in these contested areas, our additional energy might make the difference in terms of controlling Congress. We only need one legislative branch to investigate the current administration’s already stunning record of corruption and malfeasance and to derail the next phase of the Republicans’ vile legislative agenda.

Notice the immediate benefits of this simple commitment. There is no reason to feel guilty for not always reading The Nation, watching Rachel Maddow, studying judicial opinions, reviewing bigoted and counterproductive immigration plans, or attending the next demonstration. You are not just going to commiserate with allies and argue with opponents. You will soon act in a way that might make a real difference. You will do something they definitely do not want you to do, because our time can defeat their money. Should the Democrats blunder their way to another defeat in 2018, commit to another week in 2020, perhaps by working on behalf of a less subservient Democrat during the primary. Maybe it becomes a biannual habit.  After all, younger generations may one day ask, “What did you do during the Environmental and Class Wars of the early Twenty-First Century?”

In the meantime, take care of yourself and others. Meditate, practice Tai Chi, walk the dog through the snow, drink some water with lemon juice, and then listen to someone like Norah Jones or Billie Holliday.

The post Surviving political turmoil: The one percent commitment appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It is all but guaranteed that President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to sit on the Supreme Court will create a political inferno, aggravating the hysteria that is fracturing our nation. The debate involves numerous controversial issues, such as abortion, gay rights, campaign finance, affirmative action, religious liberty, and the constitutionality of social legislation such as the Affordable Care Act.

Here are five basic questions about our constitutional system that should be asked of any nominee to the Supreme Court. While I don’t consider the recommended answers sufficient to determine if a candidate should be appointed, they are a necessary first step.

Question One: The Supreme Court has created many “fundamental rights” that it vigorously protects. Over time, the Court alters these rights. Which fundamental rights are the most fundamental?

Answer: To prevent the Republic from degenerating into mobocracy, oligarchy or tyranny, the Court must uphold the electoral process. Elections should never be suspended. For example, Americans conducted a pivotal Presidential election in the middle of the Civil War. The Court also must protect the right to vote from unwarranted governmental interference.

Furthermore, elections are meaningless if people do not have robust freedom of political speech. The government should not be able to suppress particular viewpoints. Nor should governments punish anyone for “seditious libel.” The Court should interpret Brandenburg v. Ohio to hold that a defendant did not commit criminal incitement unless they intentionally encouraged people to violence and there was good chance that their inflammatory rhetoric would soon cause violence. In other words, it would never be a criminal act to encourage nonviolent civil disobedience. These core First Amendment rights protect individual sovereignty, self-expression, and the ability to participate authentically in the political process.

Perhaps the most important civil right is a citizen’s right of personal mobility. After a criminal conviction, most other rights mean little. The government should not be able to incarcerate an American citizen unless tried in an Article III Court by a jury of their peers (a right found in the Magna Carta). Thus, I agree with the dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, written by the late Justice Scalia and joined by Justice Stevens. The Supreme Court should not have permitted military tribunals to adjudicate terrorism charges against American citizens. It is too tempting to call political opponents “terrorists” and imprison them. There is not a lot of support for Scalia’s position among the elite, but sometimes the Court gets it terribly wrong.

Question Two: The Supreme Court has become a major political issue. Witness the furor surrounding your nomination. Do you think the Court has become too involved in electoral politics?  If so, how can it escape?

Answer: The Court has become too entangled in partisan politics. The Court should show significant, but not absolute judicial restraint by presuming that most laws and governmental actions are constitutional. The Court also should be wary of revisiting most prior constitutional decisions. I would be reluctant to strike down a law unless at least five other Justices agreed.  There are too many five-to-four opinions reflecting the competing ideologies of the two major Parties.

Question Three: What is the greatest threat to this nation’s domestic tranquility and the social fabric? What can the Court do to alleviate the problem?

Answer:  Feeling a loss of power, the populace has become shrilly divided along racial, gender, class, and religious lines. At a minimum, the Court must not permit governments to discriminate maliciously and expressly against people because of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or political viewpoints. The Supreme Court’s decision to outlaw overt school racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education was one of its greatest acts.

Question Four: Do you believe in “the rule of law?”  What does it mean to you?

Answer: While it might be more accurate to say that our legal system consists of “the rule of law and judges,” we will lose our republic if the “rule of law” is discarded. The phrase has many meanings. The heart of the doctrine is that nobody, including the President of the United States or the CEO of Goldman Sachs, is above the law. For example, Clinton v. Jones properly decided that there is no absolute Presidential immunity.

There is extraordinary fear and anger right now. People across the political spectrum need to know that the Supreme Court will always protect their basic civil liberties.

Question Five: We would like to learn a bit more about your character. You have had a remarkable legal career. What have you done outside of the law to humbly help people without expectation of reward?

Answer: I have not relentlessly focused on my career. Here are some examples of how I have assisted friends, family, and individual members of the community….

These hoped-for answers provide a strong foundation for our republican system as long as most people across the political spectrum agree. Americans have developed a large set of core values and traditions that can sustain the best aspects of our society and provide us with the means to adapt to new challenges. Whatever you think about my opposition to military tribunals, there is much more common ground and good will than many Cultural Warriors on both sides would have you think. If not, then we have much more to worry about than Donald Trump or excessive political correctness.

The post 5 questions for any Supreme Court nominee [and 5 hoped-for answers] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If one assumes that “divide and conquer” remains the ruling class’s favorite weapon, many leaders must be applauding Donald Trump for having done such a thorough job of polarizing the populace. Trump’s vicious rhetoric has encouraged people across the political spectrum to turn on each other with extraordinary ferocity and contempt. Racist stereotypes abound; study political cartoons of African-American youth or clueless, tubby Joe Six-Pack.

Such blistering attacks not only make it harder to create common ground to better protect ourselves, our families, our nation, and our planet, but also generate so much emotional static that it is difficult to think clearly. For example, blaming the election outcome on the “white working class” is a variant of “white trash baiting.” That analysis conveniently ignores how many middle class and upper middle class whites supported Trump. It also enables some smug liberals to blame the victims.

It is equally misleading to equate an average voter’s beliefs with the most odious members of their Party. Neo-Nazi support for Donald Trump does not make every Trump voter or supporter a fascist. The same applies to viewpoints about religion. Anti-religious atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are intellectual provocateurs, not to be equated with skeptical agnostics who try to pursue a spiritual life of kindness while suspending judgment on such great questions as the possibility of God, science-defying miracles, and life after death.

On the other hand, it is hard to stay polite when so many are so vicious. You become a softy in a harsh world. Outrage is necessary when our nation is acting so recklessly and cruelly. As someone who has long been disgusted by the devolution of our land from a flawed but hopeful, wealthy republic into an anxious, poorly informed herd prodded by billionaires and their hench-people, I have developed guidelines to prevent me from habitually falling into the divide and conquer trap:

Be very wary of political and economic leaders, whatever their purported ideology.

Republicans versus Democrats is often a tribal con. The economic and political elite run both Parties, permitting the citizenry to fight over Culture War crumbs. Be skeptical of any polemic that starts “Republicans are…” or “Liberals think…” Unqualified political analysis is often insultingly overbroad. Madison said that a republican citizenry remains virtuous so long as they never blindly trust their superiors.

Be equally wary of intellectual leaders and media figures, whatever their background.

The priests of power residing in the media, think tanks, and academy are rewarded for developing arguments and slogans that legitimate the status quo. The five major corporations that own most of the mass media constantly regulate the scope of acceptable argument. How often has the New York Times or any other major news source published articles describing NATO expansion and aggression in Eastern Europe?

 Don’t have double standards

A lot of Democrats understandably got very upset because children would be adversely influenced by detailed revelations of Trump’s sexual predations. But where was that disgust among the Democratic elite when Bill Clinton introduced the concept of oral sex to another generation of youngsters? If you supported Trump because you thought Obama was unwilling to enforce the law against corporate criminals and Hillary would be equally pliable, demand that Trump drain the swamp. Many Democrats loved Wikileaks when it exposed Republican war crimes but are outraged now.

Develop sympathy for most followers

Most people aspire to be decent, performing an often-tedious job, helping family members, being with friends, and enjoying some aspects of life. Not everybody who disagrees with you about important political issues suffers from greed, fear, racism, sexism, or false consciousness. Many divisive issues are polarizing because “partial justice” exists on both sides. We need each other to form a supermajority to avoid environmental and/or nuclear catastrophe. Most Americans have been poorly educated. Pervasive advertising helped mold their cultural consciousness, while their schools mandate Test-driven regurgitation of abstract concepts like “division of labor” which have been stripped of history, context, qualification, and critical analysis. These distracting, isolated concepts and facts are worse than useless.

Criticize extremists and avoid trolls

There are always some followers worth criticizing. If someone joins the Ku Klux Klan or any other organization that romanticizes terror and bigotry, they truly are an “enemy.” If a fanatic acts violently, they deserve severe punishment. The white supremacist murderer Dylan Root and the four African-American sadists in Chicago have deeply hurt our society. If you reject the electoral system, as flawed as it is, you need to change your viewpoint.  Do you really think an even more unaccountable political elite would be more responsive to the average person’s needs and interests? Trolls are at best worthless, at worst an emotional drag.

Try to find some common ground with friends and family who are on “the other side.”

This is the most important point, because these people are the emotional center of our private lives. Try to prevent public issues from destroying domestic tranquility. While often failing, I attempt to avoid political discussions with those close to me unless they express quite a bit of interest, don’t want to get into a shouting match, and don’t play intellectual “gotcha.” First, try to find issues you agree on. There should continue to be elections. Domestic political violence is bad. Political dissent must be protected. If they don’t accept these basic democratic principles, there is no reason for further discussion.

Perhaps you can move to more contentious issues. Systemic torture is vile, counterproductive, and a threat to our troops. Americans should not be left to starve to death. Clinton and Trump both have flawed characters. Florida should not go under water. Nuclear war is a bad idea.

If you run into a political bully from either side, politely inform them in private that you prefer to discuss something else. If they continue, point out that they are causing you emotional discomfort even if their motives and intentions were good. You might deter continued harassment by describing how they are not respecting your wishes. If they persevere, calmly exit. You might even wait a couple of minutes, so they won’t get the pleasure of thinking they rattled you. There is no reason to put up with such abuse.  Of course, you may have to do this many times with certain family members.

Preserve patient hope

Some of you may have not been all that interested in politics. It often is a dirty business. Now that you have become involved, you may expect things to change quickly. Good luck with that. Patience is a political as well as a personal virtue. You must maintain hope that we can improve, but you might want to reduce expectations that major advances will happen, much less happen soon.

We can be quite certain that things will get much worse if decent people capitulate. The good news is that the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders indicates that the neoliberal, imperialist ideological monolith may be cracking up. This is an interesting time. For decades, millions of us could not find a single politician or television program reflecting our viewpoint.   But we should remain wary of all politicians, including Warren and Sanders. Will they join or oppose the Democratic leadership’s promotion of a second Cold War with Russia?

Be kind to yourself and others

It may not seem like much, but smile at people who appear to be on the other side. There are a lot of anxious Muslims and defiant white males walking about. A non-political joke goes a long way. Whenever you encounter an internal wave of misanthropy, despair, or bitterness, don’t lacerate yourself with shame or self-hatred. Otherwise, you turned these recommendations into another debilitating version of “political correctness.” Nobody is perfect. For instance, you may have noticed that I already violated these strictures by castigating “some smug liberals.”

Sadly, both sides have so much fury in common. Perhaps we can address that shared reaction by asking each other “Why?” and then actually listening to the answer with an open heart if not a completely open mind.

The post Political civility during the Trump administration appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Are you having post-election buyer’s remorse? There are many reasons people did not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. Some people, including myself, generally lean Green-Left, but we actually found several of Trump’s policy positions put forth during the election to be more appealing. Mrs. Clinton is a staunch defender of the status quo (hardly a leftist perspective). She primarily ran against Trump’s flagrantly flawed character. Whenever she got any sort of a lead in the polls, she lunged to the right. These numerous ideological differences may have encouraged many well-intended voters to vote for Jill Stein, the Libertarian, not vote at all, or even support Trump. Now that we know about his major appointments and have witnessed several pronouncements via Twitter and elsewhere, let’s revisit those issues where Trump provided more hope than Clinton.

Before getting started, please note that this dreary review is not meant to be snarky about those who did not vote for Hillary. I have a lot of sympathy for alienated voters, non-voters, reluctant Trump voters, and Trump supporters who may already have doubts. The political system is rigged to favor the rich.

I erroneously voted for Nader in 2000 instead of Gore and did not want to make the same mistake again, so I reluctantly voted for her. Trump appears unstable and is congenitally dishonest. He launched his Presidential campaign by promoting the odious, racist Big Lie that President Obama had been born outside the United States. His casual, misleading retraction revealed his complete contempt for facts. Thus, I never took seriously any of his campaign positions. I hoped he was lying about the most awful ones, such as the nonexistence of climate change. Overall, the good stuff is being discarded while the worst stuff is metastasizing on the table.

Massive nuclear war

Trump claimed he would work with Russia, while Hillary supported NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, a policy her husband began. She might have shot down Russian planes in Syria by the end of next month. But Trump merely switched “official enemies.” We are now supposed to hate China more than Russia. A 2016 update of Orwell’s 1984. Given Trump’s inherent volatility, the risk of massive nuclear war appears greater than under Clinton. Trump’s proposal to re-escalate the nuclear arms race is frightening.

No second Cold War

Clinton appeared to want another Cold War with Russia. The only thing worse than a Cold War is a Hot War. Now, we probably will have Cold War II with China. Hardly an improvement. Neither Party seems interested in peace.

Smaller wars

Trump claims he will not revisit Obama’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment, the deal with Iran. But who would more likely invade Iran? There are a lot of aggressive people in the Trump Cabinet, while there would have been different members of the War Party in the Clinton Cabinet. Neither leader would do much for the Palestinians. Once again, Trump’s bellicose personality suggests he is a greater threat to world peace.  But don’t forget that Obama has bombed seven countries and probably sent special forces in many more, while Hillary has always been inclined to use violence.

Free trade

Just as I am not a fan of unregulated markets, I oppose unconditioned trade and open borders. Trump stopped TPP, while Obama would probably have pushed it through Congress as Secretary Hillary feigned disapproval. However, Trump’s plan to impose a huge tariff on Chinese goods suggests that his trade policy will be part of his (hopefully only) Cold War against China. Jobs probably will continue to flow to most other countries. Already, the increased value in the dollar makes it less attractive to manufacture products in the United States.

Immigration reform

The Democrats were going to serve their corporate masters; Clinton advocated, “open borders” and Schumer said it was one of the first things they were going to do after their hoped-for victory. I doubt if it will be all that different under Trump. There may or may not be a wall, but the wealthy want illegal and legal immigration to reduce labor costs, increase labor competition, and weaken unions. You can be sure no employers of illegals will face legal sanctions.

Drain the swamp

Trump attacked not just the Clintons’ corrupt behavior but also the appalling ethics of the Beltway. He frequently mocked his Republican opponents for their subservience to people like him.  However, his appointments of political hucksters and leaders from Goldman Sachs indicate business as usual or worse.   His personal conflicts of interest are astounding, rivaling or exceeding the Clintons’ grubbing for money while she was Secretary of State.  So far, it does not look like there will even be “an appearance of propriety.”  It would be real progress if Trump, unlike Obama, indicts a few corporate criminals. Given the appointments, what are the odds? Perhaps a bit better than under Clinton.

The Fed

Trump talked about taming the Federal Reserve Board, the institution that primarily implements “socialism for the rich” while Congress maintains “capitalism for the poor.” But will there even be a real audit of that secretive institution dominated by private bankers? The Goldman appointments indicate “No.”

Personal corruption

Trump claimed he was so wealthy that the elite would not capture him. True, they will have more than usual trouble controlling his outbursts, but he won’t resist their giving money to his family and creating immediate financial opportunities for his businesses. It will be interesting to see how much his family’s wealth has increased by the end of his Presidency.  I am sure he is envious of Putin’s billions.

Infrastructure

There was a possibility that Trump would have created a substantial infrastructure program. But Republican opposition in Congress may prevail. Do you think he cares? Our best hope may be that one of his children enters the construction business.  Either way, any decent Trump proposals will probably share the same fate as any reasonable Clinton initiatives.

The ACA

Trump once supported “single payer,” the cheapest, best solution to providing national care. But his cabinet appointments indicate millions of Americans’ health and finances will soon rapidly deteriorate.

Jobs

Trump asserted he would enable the working and middle class to have better jobs. Clinton only wanted to tinker. While talking about reducing student loan debt, she failed to mention that her husband received millions to promote a for-profit educational institution that extracted millions from the desperately underemployed. Given Trump’s appointments, it looks like the average person will have to wait at least four more years before they have a President who actually cares about them.

LGBT

The President-elect has been quite good on LGBT rights. Peter Thiel spoke at the RNC. Trump said the Supreme Court should not revisit the gay marriage decision. This position is the remaining glimmer of decency, similar to Clinton’s support. There was a passing hope that Trump could convince his base to let go of this stupid, divisive issue. But Senator Cruz is proposing an Orwellian Bill that will undermine vital First Amendment rights (along with many other constitutional rights) by permitting business owners to discriminate against gays for “moral reasons.” It will be OK to keep African-Americans out of your public restaurant if their patronage violates your “religious liberty.” Will Trump speak out against this divisive, dangerous bill? Will he veto it? Will he closely vet Supreme Court nominees to prevent legalized gay bashing and racism? With Hillary, we wouldn’t need to ask these questions.

Helping poor minorities

“What have you got to lose?” While the Democratic Party elite has not made a serious effort to ease the plight of the urban poor for decades, it looks like every average person will lose a lot over the next four years: the ACA, workers’ rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, HUD, public services, and on and on and on.

Character

A lot of people, including myself, disliked and distrusted Hillary Clinton. When Trump won, those who despised Clinton might have been temporarily pleased, thinking, “At least that lying, greedy, militaristic Hillary and her corrupt, sexually predatory husband will not regain power.” Yeah, but Trump’s a lying, greedy, sexually predatory Wildman who may be inclined to replace our beloved republic with an authoritarian or Fascist State.

The bad stuff

We haven’t even considered all the bad things he said he would do that he will do and all the bad things he will do that we haven’t heard about yet. Nor all the venomous, greedy, and cruel legislation that Clinton might have vetoed.

It already looks like it was a grave mistake not to vote for Clinton. I certainly would already be second-guessing that tempting decision. If you did not support Hillary, don’t feel too guilty. It is never shameful to vote your conscience, and there are more powerful ways to move society in a more humane direction than periodically casting a vote. We must organize, developing community-based institutions that provide companionship and direction. To paraphrase Joe Hill, “Don’t mourn the election, organize!”

The Left always tends to finger point and sub-divide. If we are going to deal with looming catastrophic environmental problems, terrorism, religious fanatics, class and racial divisions, and the threat of war (including nukes), we need a much bigger tent, extending deep into the Republican Party’s current base. Then anti-democratic garbage like voter suppression, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College won’t matter. It will not be easy to get there. Even this brief essay pointed its finger (and we know which one) at both Clintons.

But there may be some good effects resulting from this rapid deflation of fragile, desperate hope. If Trump had made an effort to extend his political support by helping most people instead of doubling on austerity economics (socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor), he might have created a much broader base, enabling him to fulfill many other, even more odious and dangerous aspirations that may lurk within.

The post Buyer’s remorse? Perhaps you should have voted for her appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Newly elected Presidents do not obtain formal power for over two months, but it feels like they gain control immediately. Their major appointments and legislative recommendations reveal looming ideological priorities far more than bombastic campaign rhetoric. For many of us, discouragement eroded hope when the Obama administration announced before the inauguration that private insurance companies would profit from any changes in the heath care provision. The “single payer” plan was abruptly “taken off the table” without public discussion. When Obama next appointed Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers to influential positions, it was equally clear that Wall Street remained in control of the political economy. On the other hand, Obama placed thoughtful scientists to oversee environmental issues.

While many of Obama’s appointments and subsequent actions confirmed that the Democratic Party’s commitment to gradualism was becoming so gradual that it would morph into the staunch defender of the status quo, Donald Trump’s selections reveal a reckless contempt not just for competent government and the reality principle, but also for humanity’s habitat. Despair arises when one perceives that future Secretary-of-State Rex Tillerson, recent CEO of Exxon Mobil, may be the Trump administration’s most reasonable environmental analyst. His company, which relentlessly fought the theory of climate change, has finally conceded that global warming exists. According to Tillerson, it is a “low priority problem.”  Exxon recently tweeted its support for the Paris agreement proposing feeble efforts to reduce pollutants.

Many other Trump nominees, such as Scott Pruitt, Rick Perry, Myron Ebell, and Ryan Zinke, are blindly hostile to environmental science and concerns, determined to permit extraction of as much wealth as possible from the planet at lowest possible cost to themselves. All other risks and externalities—worker safety, citizen health, excessive consumption of resources, and climate change—will fade from policy analysis.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs remains well represented, and the military-industrial complex has sufficient ex-generals in positions of civilian power. Billionaires populate important Cabinet posts. Another wave of despondency arises when it appears that the most restrained foreign policy actor is General James Mattis, whose nickname is “Mad Dog.”  At least Tillerson and Mattis are serious people who thrived within important organizations. The military foresees the costs of climate change and resource depletion. Most other appointments are wealthy hustlers or clowns chosen from a political-cultural system that is becoming another corporate-sponsored circus.

Trump’s willingness to increase carbon pollutants is not surprising. He mocked climate change, absurdly claiming it was a Chinese plot. Supporting the carbon-based energy industry will probably garner support from the Koch Brothers, who previously did not like him because he was not one of their puppets. There is a good chance a Trump offspring will soon be the proud owner of an oil patch.

Sadly, these developments are nothing new. Simply recall Dick Cheney’s service to Halliburton, a beneficiary of energy deregulation and the invasion of Iraq. Tony Blair, England’s slippery equivalent of Bill Clinton, and Bush family confidant James Baker make millions working for the Carlyle Group, a mysterious financial organization that facilitates the flow of oil and money. The Bushes have enduring contacts with the House of Saud. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, obtained a seat on the Board of Directors of a private Ukrainian energy company (revealing that self-interest is one of the motivations for the Democratic leadership’s animosity towards the Russians).

American exceptionalism has created a new form of government: Oligarchy, plutocracy, and kleptocracy blend into a filthy pollutocracy. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer presciently reduced unrestrained egoism’s perspective to a chilling maxim: “May the world perish, provided I am safe.”

So how should environmentalists prioritize resistance to the frenzied degradation of our planet?  The awful truth is that neither party has been serious about environmental challenges. The difficulties appear almost insoluble; eight billion people are entangled in a web of desperate need and insatiable greed. Worldwide, a vast amount of pollution will be created no matter what Americans do over the short-term.

But there will be another election in less than two years, and Trump seems incredibly mercurial and unprincipled, sensitive to swings in public opinion. Thus, most regulatory changes can be readjusted if the populace decides their grandchildren’s future is more important than energy-inefficient transportation, plastic shopping bags, excessive corporate profits, and so forth.

The sale and leasing of public lands is another matter. The Department of Interior will probably cause the most irreparable damage. Once private actors gain title, they have extractive power that lasts for decades or even lifetimes. Thus, the demonstrators at Standing Rock have chosen the proper battleground: oil profits versus land and local people. Once the remaining commons is privatized, becoming another plaything for the opulent, there is far less we can do for ourselves, much less future generations.

The post Welcome to American pollutocracy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We live life within at least six dimensions: the spiritual, the political, the personal, the familial, the professional, and the communal. Whether you are celebrating or despairing after this extraordinary election, you might find perspective, even solace, by reflecting upon all six. When one collapses, it may be best to dwell within another for a while.

Whether you are religious or not, the spiritual is the most important: One way or the other, you have to establish a working relationship between your extraordinary consciousness and the rest of the Universe. While I tend to believe there is no Ultimate Purpose in my life, I try to live a decent life based upon kindness to self and others.  Compassion is the greatest spiritual practice, one that can be performed by everyone.

Adverse political developments can test kindness. After the Chinese conquered Tibet, they threw a doctor in jail, where they tortured him for years. When he was finally released, someone asked him what was the worst part of the ordeal. He said it was trying to maintain compassion for his captors. While I doubt if I could be so generous, I am going to try harder than ever to find common ground with people across the political spectrum. Not every vote for Trump was a “vote for racism;” not every vote for Clinton was a “vote for corruption.”  Most of us were not thrilled with either option.

You are still alive. You have had and will continue to have a unique, interesting life. Human consciousness is so extraordinary that it approaches the miraculous. Listen to the wind-blown leaves dancing along the earth.  Pet your dog.  Simply be grateful for your next breath.  One way or the other, it’s not going to last all that much longer.

I hope that you are in touch with your flawed but often wonderful family. Give everybody a hug. Perhaps you can reach out to someone with whom you have had serious differences.  Very few of us have much control or influence over the world, but we play major roles within our tiny, vulnerable families.

Whatever work you do or services you provide, try to do them better. Some of your co-workers or customers voted for the other side. They are frightened too.

Our community is very fractured right now. The ruling class seems to have gone overboard when utilizing its fundamental tool of “divide and conquer,” and many members of both factions are filled with self-righteous fury. Somehow, people of good will from both sides (and there are people of good will on both sides) must overcome these understandable emotions to band together to create a more decent society that addresses the serious problems our species face throughout the world. This election may create the space for new coalitions to form. There is always a place for friendship and reciprocity. If you know and like someone from the other side, ask them for a hug. While hugging them, think where both of you will be in two hundred years.

[Image credit:  Roman Harak – In the sand, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31637804]

The post Six dimensions of post-election solace appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Before capitulating to misanthropy, George Carlin delighted many of us by eviscerating the meritocracy’s treacherous rhetoric. Towards the end of his life, he tragically appeared to love words more than humanity.

One of Carlin’s best riffs explored the linguistic evolution of “shell shock,” a World War I phrase vividly describing the psychological damage of combat. The alliteration of “sh” amplifies the violent, shrieking cause—shells—and the horrific effect—shock. Carlin observed, “Two syllables…almost sounds like the guns themselves.” Indeed, the word “hell” is embedded.

During World War II, the military-medical complex labeled the most severe cases “battle fatigue,” leaving the remaining troops to fend alone in a culture that censured mental illness. Systemic violence remained central, because that four-syllable phrase honestly used the word “battle.” However, “fatigue” intimates lassitude more than devastating horror.

The conflict in Korea introduced “operational exhaustion.” That chilly euphemism eliminated the role of war in destroying so many young people’s lives. “Operational exhaustion” was supplanted in Vietnam by a more medical-sounding phrase, “post-traumatic stress disorder.” Carlin noted that its major contribution was a hyphen.

The existential horrors of warfare had just become another set of treatable medical disorders, preferably with cheap but lucrative pharmaceuticals. Our society’s decision to inflict widespread harm by sending part of its citizenry into harm’s way was rendered ordinary, similar to suffering caused by accidents, parental abuse, crime, or other awful events. Everyone has been unfairly or arbitrarily injured at one time or another: Everyone tries to “get over it.”

But there should be a special place of tragic honor for those who suffered so much on the battlefield. Some were shocked by the death and maiming of friends. Others were shattered by the killing of enemy troops or noncombatants. Leonard Cohen, another sadly departed guide for the distraught and perplexed, once sang, “Whatever makes a soldier sad will make a killer smile.” Acknowledging these psychic costs (the greatest debts of war) might encourage our nation to do more for its veterans (starting by creating a greater collective presumption against combat, particularly “wars of choice”).

Carlin also excoriated “collateral damage” and “enhanced interrogation.” For starters, both doctrines obfuscate governmental intentions and responsibilities. The broadest definition of “intent” is that an actor intends every effect that they can foresee will be caused by their action. In other words, we often resolve to do something that will produce a mixture of desirable and undesirable results. We can hope that the government’s primary purpose was to kill terrorists and not to terrorize or even alienate populations so they would continue fighting. Sadly, some people on both sides seem to enjoy exacerbating “The Clash of Civilizations.”

It is not only foreseeable but also demeaning to characterize the slaughter of innocent civilians as “damage.” Collateral damage obscures how America systemically uses “weapons of mass destruction” to commit war crimes. For some reason, a bomb dropped by a B-52 or a drone on a wedding, funeral, or hospital is allegedly less disgusting than a terrorist bomb planted at a local police station. “Enhanced interrogation” is equally misleading, suggesting that torture is a more effective way to gather intelligence. Actually, there often was no interrogation, no plan to gather data from those stale, unreliable sources. There simply was systemic sadism. Thus, the chilly phrase exaggerates torture’s value and denies how it is actually utilized. We refined two forms of State terrorism, bathed in euphemisms reeking of refined, faux expertise, an unholy mix of Madison Avenue and lawyer-talk.

We thus need to approach all prevailing rhetoric with great suspicion. Sometimes, leaders flaunt Orwellian flips, instructing us that “War” is “Peace.” More often, they don’t abide by professed principles. Official promotion of “transparency” usually signifies that the leader is withholding crucial information. Hillary Clinton discussed transparency all the time.

President-elect Trump is a master of the Art of the Lie and the Flip-Flop. Top-down surrealism serves many functions. Some people will devotedly believe his nonsense, such as the alleged participation of millions of fraudulent voters in the 2016 election. They are “useful idiots.” Others see through those fabrications but remain loyal, thereby demonstrating a capacity for leadership under their glorious trailblazer. Dissenters and skeptics complain, exposing themselves as an opposition to be marginalized. Many others remain silent, hoping that neither power nor truth catches up with them. Who knows? Perhaps human pollution is not making the earth uninhabitable for humans.

The first step is to divide these broad, vacuous concepts into separate, useful categories. If the phrase is not a flagrant lie or hypocritical cant, it may have value. “Post-traumatic stress disorder” does not blatantly reject the reality principle, which is grounded in respect for all facts. It is important to acknowledge how injuries can poison the mind. Often, the mind’s repetitive recollections are worse than the triggering event. This protracted anguish explains why successful tort plaintiffs are compensated for immediate pain and long-term suffering. Indeed, “suffering” and “distress” are more accurate terms than “stress,” which sounds somewhat mechanical.

However, there are profound differences between combat and domestic violence in forms, origins, and effects. Perhaps we should we reserve “shell shock” for veterans and use “post-traumatic stress disorder” for noncombat injuries. That linguistic move might make smug American civilians, who fortunately have not witnessed homeland war for well over a hundred years, less willing to send others into a bloodbath and more willing to help them when they return.

These examples reveal multiple layers of obfuscation that make it easier for the powerful to avoid scrutiny and create double standards in application. Fortunately, we have tools to analyze contested political terms, all requiring clarity refined by comic skepticism. Carlin study of history revealed alternative formulations. Most of this stuff is like extraordinarily bad poetry; we need to listen to the feeling tones within a prevailing phrase. Do the words graphically and accurately describe the problem, like “shell shock,” or are they a wordy concoction of abstractions reflecting the deadened imagination of the bureaucratic mind?

Intentionality, causation, foreseeability, and reality become lost in a mist of off-putting gibberish. Whenever the scope of the concept is elusive or obscure, there is an increased chance of bad faith. What functions does the phrase serve? What is being emphasized, hidden, or ignored? Who benefits and who loses? We need to determine all the effects that lurk beneath these less than majestic generalities and then normatively assess those outcomes. If war only causes medical problems that have afflicted everyone to some degree, perhaps it is not so hellish.

The next few essays will use these tools to compare and contrast such fraught terms as “Identity Politics,” “Culture Wars,” “Political Correctness,” “Affirmative Action,” “Diversity,” and “American Exceptionalism.” If some of what will be written pisses you off, just dismiss it as collateral damage.

The post Reflections on George Carlin, in the era of Donald Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.