Michael Tomasky: Mainstream Media Doesn’t Cover Trump’s Worst Insults

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2024 //
20

Well, by now, we have all grown accustomed to Trump’s mad ravings, so they are no longer newsworthy. So says Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic. Some readers of this blog will say that he suffers from NY Times‘ derangement syndrome, but hear him out. To be fair, Tomasky almost forgave the New York Times after he read Peter Baker’s article about Trump’s incoherence and cognitive decline, which appeared soon after he wrote this piece, titled “The Media Is Finally Waking Up to the Story of Trump’s Mental Fitness.”

He wrote:

It’s a pretty sad commentary on the way our mainstream media cover Donald Trump that if you really want to know what Trump said at a given rally, you would be wasting your time going to The New York Times or The Washington Post and you really need to read Aaron Rupar.

He writes:

Who is Rupar? He’s a liberal Substacker and prolific tweeter who prints all the news The New York Times doesn’t deem fit to print. The latest case in point is Trump’s weekend rally at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin—an appropriately named venue for a speech in which Trump was barking out hatred and bile like a mad dog.

If you’re the sort of person really steeped in campaign coverage, you may have read about what went down; if you missed it, spoiler alert: Trump said something at this rally so insane and offensive that even the Times finally roused itself to cover it. Trump called Kamala Harris “mentally disabled” and added: “Joe Biden became mentally impaired; Kamala was born that way.”

That statement, whatever else we might call it, was obviously news, so the Times couldn’t help leading with it. Ditto the Post, which decided to produce a story that emphasized Trump’s violation of politically correct manners. The Post piece quoted a mental health advocate scolding Trump for his insensitive language—as if what he said was offensive only to people struggling with mental illness!

Meanwhile, here are some other things Trump said at the rally, which you had to read Rupar’s X feed to know about.

 “These people are animals” (referring to migrants).

“I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members. We’re going to liberate our country.”

“You gotta get these people back where they came from. You have no choice. You’re gonna lose your culture.”

And, finally, this gem: “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

Let’s tarry over that last one for a bit. Here’s a man who wants to be the president of the United States saying of immigrants—all immigrants: women, children, old people, everyone—that they will invade your home and attack you in one of the most violent and painful (and terrifying) ways possible. They will cut your throat.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find that shocking, even coming from Trump. It’s one thing to say that Mexico is “sending rapists,” as he infamously did in 2015. Even making a general statement about how these people come here and commit crimes, while bad enough, isn’t nearly as bad as this. This is saying directly to every American that they will break into your house and cut your throat.

That sure seems like news to me. Yet it didn’t appear in either the Times or the Post account. The Times piece did have a sentence noting that Trump “continued to vilify” migrants and called them “stone-cold killers,” so let’s give them that, at least. But the plain implication of Trump’s statement here is that migrants are an imminent threat to one’s safety. This is an unambiguous incitement to preemptive violence. How can such a vicious statement not be thought of as news?

Here’s how. If your definition of “news” is simply that which is new, then OK, maybe. Calling his opponent who happens to be the sitting vice president of the United States “mentally disabled” was new, and ergo it was news. That I get.

But Trump attacking migrants isn’t new. Obviously, I would argue that a candidate for president raising the specter of people breaking into people’s homes and cutting their throats is new. Perhaps reasonable minds can differ on that, I guess. And if it isn’t new, it isn’t news…

Why is age fair game for discussion but mental infirmity taboo? Is it because of basic human emotional responses to each matter—that is, we all see people age, it’s familiar, we’re comfortable talking about it—whereas with respect to mental health, talking about it makes us uncomfortable? If so, that’s a pretty lousy excuse. It’s journalism’s job to raise uncomfortable questions.

My commentary:

As for me, I don’t think that the issue is Trump’s mental health, although he is apparently suffering cognitive decline as video clips of his meanderings demonstrate.

The fact is that his campaign is based on demonizing immigrants, without regard to facts. He has launched a hateful campaign against them, making them targets of fear. It seems as though he is encouraging his followers to beat them up.

If he carried out his proposed mass deportation of millions of immigrants, not only would it be an act of inhumanity, but it would cripple important sectors of our economy: agriculture, tourism, meat and seafood processing, construction, restaurants, and more.

Categories Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Insane, Media, Trump

How Democracies Become Autocracies, By Burrowing from Within

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2024 //
9

In an opinion piece in Scientific American, Cecilia Menjívar of UCLA and Deisy Del Real of the University of Southern California contend that the United States and other nations are sliding toward autocracy. They believe we can learn from the experience of other nations.

They write:

An autocratic wave has crept up on us in the U.S. and over the world in the last decade. Democracy and autocracy were once seen as two separate and distant worlds with little in common, and that the triumph of one weakened the other. Now, however, autocrats across the globe, in poor and wealthy nations, in established and nascent democracies, and from the right and left, are using the same tactics to dismantle democracies from within.

As of 2021, of the 104 countries classified as democracies worldwide, 37 had experienced moderate to severe deterioration in key elements of democracy, such as open and free elections, fundamental rights and liberties, civic engagement, the rule of law, and checks-and-balances between government branches. This democratic backsliding wave has accelerated since 2016 and infiltrated all corners of the world.

With the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November, questions about the future of American democracy take on urgency. As the American public seems increasingly receptive to autocratic tactics, these questions become even more pressing. Will the U.S. slide into autocracy, faced with a presidential candidate in Donald Trump who promises to be a dictator on his first day in office? Can lessons from autocracies elsewhere help us detect democratic backsliding in the U.S.?

To answer these questions, we first need to identify how the new breed of autocrats attains and retains power: their hallmark strategy is deception. How does a roll call of modern autocrats, and wannabe autocrats, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, India’s Narendra Modi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro implement this modus operandi for the latest model of autocracy? They twist information and create confusion within a façade of democracy as they seize power. They do not overthrow democracy through military coups d’état but by undoing core democratic principles, weakening the rule of law, and eliminating checks and balances between branches of government.

Rather than eradicating democratic institutions as leaders like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet or Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko did in the past, today’s established and emergent autocrats (as is the case of Maduro or Orbán, for instance) corrupt the courts, sabotage elections and distort information to attain and remain in power. They are elected through ostensibly free elections and connect with a public already primed to be fearful of a fabricated enemy. Critically, they use these democratic tools to attain power; once there, they dismantle those processes. Autocratic tactics creep into the political life of a country slowly and embed themselves deeply in the democratic apparatus they corrupt. Modern autocracy, one may say, is a tyranny of gaslighting.

We gathered a group of scholars who have looked at successful and failed autocracies worldwide in a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, to identify common denominators of autocratic rulers worldwide. This research shows that modern autocrats uniformly apply key building blocks to cement their illiberal agenda and undermine democracies before taking them over. Those include manipulating the legal system, rewriting electoral laws and constitutions, and dividing the population into “us” versus “them” blocs. Autocrats routinely present themselves as the only presumed savior of the country while silencing, criminalizing and disparaging critics or any oppositional voice. They distort information and fabricate “facts” through the media, claim fraud if they lose an election, persuade the population that they can “cleanse” the country of crime and, finally, empower a repressive nationalistic diaspora and fund satellite political movements and hate groups that amplify the autocrats’ illiberal agenda to distort democracy.

In February, Bukele, the popular Salvadoran autocrat and self-described “world’s coolest dictator,” spoke at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual convention for U.S. right-wing elected officials and activists. There he received a standing ovation after he flaunted his crackdown on crime in his country and suggested the U.S. should follow his tactics. His speech demonstrates how, regardless of political history and ideology, or their nation’s wealth and place on the global stage, autocrats today deploy a similar “toolbox of tricks” aimed at legalizing their rule. That’s because they copy from one another and learn from one another’s successes and failures. Vast interconnected networks enable autocrats to cooperate, share strategies and know-how, and visit one another in public shows of friendship and solidarity to create an international united front. Just ask Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister and autocrat, who received a warm reception when he spoke at the CPAC in 2022, reminding the crowd of the reason for his visit: “I’m here to tell you that we should unite our forces.”

Global networks of autocratic regimes also provide economic resources to other autocrats and invest in their economies, share security services to squash popular dissent, and sometimes interfere in each other’s elections.

Modern autocrats do not act alone; their connections with one another are complemented and sustained by a varied cadre of legal specialists, political strategists and academics who tend to be economically secure, well-educated and cosmopolitan. These individuals, like Michael Anton and those tied to the Trump-defending Claremont Institute, the over 400 scholars and policy experts who collaborated on Project 2025— the extreme-right game plan for a Trump presidency—and Stephen K. Bannon, who called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” by filling government jobs with partisans and loyalists, move in and out of government positions and the limelight. They are nimble and, moreover, fundamental to the autocrats’ strategies, as they create videos and podcasts and write books to fabricate good images of the autocrats, write detailed blueprints for an autocratic form of government, and consult aspiring autocrats on best practices.

Evidence indicates that we are in a critical moment in U.S. democracy. Will the U.S. inevitably descend into autocracy? No, not with an alert and well-informed electorate. Recognizing the strategies that autocrats use and share, veiled behind a façade of democratic elections and wrapped in fearmongering, equips us to understand the harmful consequences of these strategies for democracy, and perhaps to stop the wave in time.

Juan Sebastián Chamorro, a Nicaraguan opposition politician and prospective presidential candidate, was accused of treason, arrested and banished simply for running as an opposition candidate by the regime of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo (who is also first lady). In exile, Chamorro has described a danger countries face: autocrats who come to power through democratic systems are “like a silent disease—the early symptoms of this silent disease are usually dismissed, but once it begins to consume the body, it is usually too late to stop it.”

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Higher Education, International, Lies

John Thompson Reviews Max Boot’s New Book, “Reagan”

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2024 //
25

John Thompson an an historian and a retired teacher in Oklahoma. Here he reviews Max Boot’s new book, Reagan. He wrote this review for this blog.

He writes:

In 2018, Max Boot recounted “his extraordinary journey from lifelong Republican to vehement Trump opponent.” Although Boot once idolized Ronald Reagan, his Reagan: His Life and Legend tells the story how Reagan planted the seeds of “Trumpism.” Boot concluded that “Reagan was both more ideological and more pragmatic than most people realize–or that I realized before starting this book project more than a decade ago.” But, even when retelling Reagan’s success stories, such as working with Gorbachev, Boot exposes his weaknesses, such as those that could have led to nuclear war.

Boot starts with the way Reagan’s rhetoric and falsehoods led to Trumpism. For instance, his advertising for General Electric led to a “convergence of conservatism in the 1950s.” Boot recalls a number of Reagan’s statements that were “all false,” and how they helped “inure the Republican Party to ‘fake news.’” 

First, Reagan’s false mythology about preventing a communist takeover of Hollywood contributed to his political rise, as he “avoided becoming tarred with the excesses of McCarthyism,” even though he “served as an FBI informant and an arbiter of the blacklist.”

Moreover, Reagan called John F. Kennedy a “fellow traveler.” He also said America was adopting “temporary totalitarian measures” such as social services and federal regulation, and “we have ten years … to win or lose –by 1970 the world will be all slave or all free.”

But, Boot adds that the press wouldn’t call him out for lying, supposedly because he was sincere in believing his falsehoods. As his spokesman, Larry Speakes, said with a shrug, when asked about Reagan’s repeated lies, “If you tell the same story five times, it’s true.”

Similarly, Reagan’s allies remained silent about what they really believed about him. After visiting Reagan in the White House, Margaret Thatcher “pointed to her head and said, “There’s nothing there.”  Thatcher later criticized his war in Grenada, saying, “The Americans are worse than the Soviets.” President Nixon called Reagan a “man of limited mental capacity” and Henry Kissinger said he was “a pretty decent guy” with “negligible” brains.

Reagan said similar things about his allies, for instance, he defended Nixon’s staff that drove Watergate because they were “not criminals at heart.”

However, Reagan’s spin and lies also had more disgusting components, which were not adequately exposed. When he launched his 1980 presidential campaign in Neshoba County, where the band played “Dixie,” his aide acknowledged that, in every election, “race played a role.” There is evidence that, privately, Reagan “shared the rightwing view of (Martin Luther) King as a dangerous subversive.” And, as Tom Wicker, the New York Times journalist, said, Reagan moved racial politics “from a lack of interest in fighting racial discrimination to an active promotion of it.”  

And when opposing the anti-apartheid movement, Reagan said that South Africa had already “eliminated the segregation we once had in our own country.”

By the end of his campaign, Reagan’s advisers used President Carter’s stolen debate briefing books to prepare him for his famous victory, using the words, “There you go again.” But Boot concludes, “What has gotten lost – both at the time and subsequently was that Carter was right on the facts and Reagan was wrong”

Then, in regard to efforts to prevent an “October Surprise,” Boot concludes that “credible evidence” later emerged that his campaign reached out to delay a hostage release.

Boot explains that when Reagan took office, plenty of his staff were incompetent and/or wanted to dismantle government. He also had adult conservatives in the room who sometimes succeeded in convincing Reagan to back away from the most outrageous policy proposals. Even so, “Few if any presidents have ever been so totally isolated even from their most senior cabinet members.”  

In his first pivotal policy battle, over cutting taxes for the rich to reduce rampant inflation and unemployment, Reagan lacked curiosity and knowledge about economic facts. He once asked Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, who took the lead in fighting inflation, “Why do we need the Federal Reserve?”

After his detailed account of the ignorance Reagan showed when passing his economic plan, Boot concluded that his administration “reached its high water mark in 1981 with its massive Economic Recovery Tax Act.” 

But, “Now the nation would have to reckon with its consequences.”

Those consequences included inflation over 9%, and unemployment over 10%; the loss of 1.9 million jobs; a 45% cut in school lunch funding; 45% of jobless persons not receiving unemployment insurance; a 1983 budget deficit of $200 billion; and shrinking the middle class, increasing profits for the rich, and increasing suffering for the poor. Long-term effects included an increase in the death gap between lower and higher income persons of 570%; and by 2020, an inequality gap was wider that those of almost any developed nation.

The same pattern held for Reagan’s foreign affairs decision-making. Boot explained that Reagan apparently believed that he ordered the invasion of Grenada (which was based on falsehoods) because “he had acted as an instrument of God.” Reagan also quoted a U.S. pilot who noted that Grenada produced nutmeg, an ingredient in eggnog. The “Russians were trying to steal Christmas,” the pilot insisted. “We stopped them.” 

And, according to Boot, Reagan’s opposition to Cuba could have gone nuclear. Secretary of State Al Haig said about Cuba, “Just give me the word and I’ll turn that f____ island into a parking lot.” But, fortunately, some of his aides settled Reagan down.

And the same behaviors, when Reagan ratcheted up Cold War paranoia, “could have resulted in a nuclear war that neither side wanted.” During his years-long negotiations with Gorbachev, Reagan was sometimes restrained by his professional staff, but sometimes not. And often his absurd beliefs kept reappearing. 

Mostly due to Gorbachev’s efforts, an arms reduction treaty was eventually passed. But Boot reminds us that in 1986, “Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agreed to a ten-year plan for total nuclear disarmament, but Reagan wouldn’t abide limits on U.S. outer-space defenses.” Because Reagan had faith in that missile defense system, which other participants knew was impossible and dangerous, he “scotched the deal with Gorbachev over them.” So, now “the United States and Russia collectively possess more than ten thousand nuclear warheads. And, despite Trump’s promises to build ‘a great Iron Dome over our country,’ satellite defenses against nuclear attacks remain unviable.”

By the way, Reagan’s few sources included the 1939 movie “Confessions of a Nazi Spy,” and, perhaps, a movie he was in, “Murder in the Air” (1940). 

And Reagan’s baseless beliefs also drove his commitments to mass murderers in Central American. He supported the “psychopath” in El Salvador behind the assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero because he was a favorite of the racist Sen. Jesse Helms.

Reagan’s support for the Contras grew out of a plan to “1. Take the War to Nicaragua. 2. Start killing Cubans.” 

And this post doesn’t have room to recount the downing of two airlines, costing 579 lives, during chaos spread by the Reagan administration. Neither is there time to appropriately cover the punch line he told over an open microphone,   “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Even before Reagan’s dementia took control, his mental acuity was in severe decline, and he apparently forgot that he was briefed on the arms for hostages deal with Iran. Boot reports, in 1987, the Iran/Contras investigations’ “harsh conclusions” were that Reagan knew about the arms for hostages deal, but it wasn’t proven that he knew about the funding of the contras;  “Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh concluded that Reagan had known about the diversion of funds, … but he could never prove it.” 

Even so, the Reagan spin on the investigation was that it was “the lynching that failed”

During this time when Reagan was increasingly disoriented, his administration was burdened by the Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) scandal; the banking and the savings and loans collapses which were due to his deregulation; and the AIDS epidemic, which Reagan ignored, even though his administration did not. Boot then concluded, “It is damning with faint praise to say that Reagan’s record on AIDS was not as bad as it could have been.”

I believe, the same could be said in terms of most, if not all, of Reagan’s “successes.” 

Boot’s conclusions include: 

While Reagan exaggerated the credit he deserved for the economic recovery, he ducked the blame for the recession.

Even if he read more than Trump and even if “he uttered fewer falsehoods than Trump,” Reagan’s “Often-shocking ignorance of public policy,” and his “repeated false statements” paved the way for Trump. 

Reagan “mishandled a pandemic, just as Trump did”

Like Trump, Reagan “catered to white bigotry.”

Reagan “empowered Christian Nationalism” and a “growing white backlash”

Reagan “helped hollow out the middle class, thereby creating the conditions for Trump’s populist movement.” 

But, there is more to worry about. Trump’s first term was similar to Reagan’s two terms, in that Trump’s aides sometimes managed to thwart or redirect his ambitions. A second Trump term would likely be more dangerous, and with fewer or no reasonable aides to settle him down. 

Categories Accountability, History, Trump

Media Matters: A Definitive Guide to Project 2025

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2024 //
7

Media Matters has done a thorough review of the contents of Project 2025, which was written as a playbook for the next Trump administration. It was released and posted on the web in 2023, without fanfare. As more people read it and expressed their indignation, Trump claimed he knew nothing about it. Ever heard of it. Didn’t know who wrote it.

But the authors of the plan included 140 people who had worked in the Trump administration. The plan was developed by the rightwing Heriage Foundation, whose president is Kevin Roberts, a friend of Trump’s.

He knew.

It’s the roadmap for the second Trump term in office.

For education, the main feature of Project 2025 is its strong support for school choice, especially vouchers. It is a formula for directing federal funds to public funding of private and religious schools, as well as home schooling. It’s the Betsy DeVos model. Its purpose is to end public schools.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Civil Rights, Democracy, Economy, Education Industry, Elections, Environment, Extremism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Funding, Trump, Unions

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on “60 Minutes”

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2024 //
37

There’s been a lot of grumbling in the media about Kamala not sitting for interviews, so these past few days she has sat for interviews. She was on “The View.” She sat for a long interview with Howard Stern. She did a podcast with Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy,” a very popular show whose audience is women., especially young women. And she did the obligatory interview with “60 Minutes.” So did Tim Walz. I thought she was terrific. Watch and seeehat you think.

Trump was supposed to be interviewed but he canceled at the last minute. He said the show owed him an apology for something Lesley Stahl said four years ago. He claimed she said that Hunter Biden’s laptop came from Russia; CBS denied it. He complained that CBS would fact check him; that was unacceptable. CBS said it always fact checks.

Categories Elections, Harris, Kamala, Media, Vance, J.D.

Creator of Fake Biden Robocall Fined $6 Million

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2024 //
22

This is good news. The misuse of AI threatens the integrity of our elections and our ability to trust anything that is communicated to us other than in person. Justice was served!

The man responsible for a political robocalling hoax aimed at New Hampshire voters has been fined $6 million by the Federal Communications Commission.

Steve Kramer, the New Orleans-based political consultant who has admitted his involvement in the hoax, must pay the fine for violating the federal Truth in Caller ID Act, which makes it illegal to make automated telephone calls with intent to defraud or cause harm. The FCC says that it will hand the matter to the US Justice Department if Kramer doesn’t pay up in 30 days.

The hoax occurred in January, when New Hampshire voters received robocalls in the runup to the state’s primary elections. The calls, which featured a computer-generated voice that mimicked the voice of President Joe Biden, urged voters not to cast ballots in the primary.

Kramer hired New Orleans magician Paul Carpenter to create the recording with help from ElevenLabs, a company that uses artificial intelligence to generate highly realistic simulations of individuals’ voices. Carpenter has said that he didn’t know Kramer’s plans for the AI recording. Kramer has claimed that he did it to demonstrate the dangers posed by computer-generated “deepfakes.”

Lingo Telecom, the Missouri phone company that sent out the robocalls, agreed to pay a $1 million fine last month for its involvement in the hoax.

In addition to the FCC fine, Kramer faces 13 felony counts of attempted voter suppression in the New Hampshire courts, as well as 13 misdemeanor counts of impersonating a candidate.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democracy, Elections, Fake, Technology

Timothy Snyder on Trump’s Hitlerian Month

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2024 //
13

Timothy Snyder, history professor at Yale University, expresses his alarm about Trump’s turn toward fascistic rhetoric in this post. Trump knows how to excite his base by repeating conspiracy theories and blaming the Jews if anything he wants goes wrong. Snyder does not invoke the reference to Hitler lightly. He knows European history.

He writes:

Trump just had quite a Hitlerian month.

But before broaching the subject of Trump and Hitler I have to say a with a word about the American taboo on “comparisons.” 

Anyone who refers to Trump’s Hitlerian moments will be condemned for “comparison.”  Somehow that “comparison” rather than Trump’s deeds becomes the problem.  The outrage one feels about the crimes of the 1930s and 1940s is transferred from the person who resembles the criminal to the person who points out the resemblance.  

This cynical position opposing “comparisons” exploits the emotional logic of exceptionalism.  Americans are innocent and good (we would like to believe).  We are not (we take for granted) like the Germans between the world wars.  We would never (we imagine) tolerate the stereotypes German Nazis invoked.  We have learned the lessons of the Holocaust. 

Since we are so innocent and good, since we know everything, it just cannot be true — so runs the emotional logic — that a leading American politician does Hitlerian things.  And since we are so pure and wise, we never have to specify what it was that we have learned from the past.  Indeed, our our goodness is so profound that we must express it by attacking the people who recall history. 

And so, in the name of our capacity to remember great evil, we make it impossible to actually remember great evil.  A taboo on “comparison” becomes a shield for the perpetrator.  Those who invoke the past are the true villains, the real source of the problem, or, as Trump says about journalists, the “enemy of the people.”  Indeed, the more Trump resembles Hitler, the safer the man is from criticism on this point.

I hope that the irony of all of this is clear: the idea that “comparison” is a sin rests on the notion of the inherent and unimpeachable virtue of the American Volk, who by definition do nothing wrong, and whose chosen Leader therefore must be beyond criticism.  In this strange way, outrage about “comparison” reinforces fascist ideas about purity and politics.  We should hate the dissenters.  We should ignore whatever casts doubt on our sense of national virtue.  We should never reflect.

Democracy, of course, depends on the ability to reflect, and that reflection is impossible without a sense of the past.  The past is our only mirror, which is why fascists want to shatter it.  In fascist Russia, for example, it is a criminal offense to say the wrong things about the Second World War.  The reason why we keep alive the memory of Nazi crimes is not because it could never happen here, but because something similar can always happen anywhere.  That memory has to include the details of history, or else we will not recognize the dangers. 

“Never again” is something that you work for, not something that you inherit.

Before we think about this past month, we also have to consider the past four years.  This entire election unfolds amidst a big lie.  It was Hitler’s advice to tell a lie so big that your followers would never believe that you would deceive them on such a scale.  Trump followed that advice in November 2020.  His claim that we actually won the election in a landslide is a fantasy that opens the way to other fantasies.  It is a conspiratorial claim that opens the way to conspiratorial thinking generally.  It prepares his followers for the idea that other Americans are enemies and that violence might be needed to install the correct leader.

This year we have seen that explicit Nazi ideas are tolerated in the Trump milieu.  The vice-presidential candidate shares a platform with Holocaust deniers, and defends Holocaust denial as free speech.  This is a fallacy people should see through: yes, the First Amendment allows Nazis to speak, but it does not ennoble Nazi speech.  The fact that people say fascist things in a country with freedom of speech is how we know that they are fascists — and that, if they themselves comes to power, they will end freedom of speech and all other freedoms.

Which brings us to North Carolina and to the gubernatorial candidate Trump once called the country’s hottest politician.  No one is denying that Mark Robinson has the right under the First Amendment to call himself a Nazi or to praise Mein Kampf.  The question is what we do about this.  Trump will not intervene here because he believes that Robinson is more likely to win than a substitute candidate would be.  Consider that for a moment: for Trump, the reason not to distance himself a self-avowed Nazi is that he hopes that the self-avowed Nazi will win an election, take office, and hold power. 

This is not surprising.  Trump and Vance are running a fascist campaign.  Its main theme in September was inspired by a lady in Springfield, Ohio, who lost her cat and then found it again.  For J.D. Vance, who knew what happened, this became the basis for the lie that Haitian immigrants were eating domestic animals.  For Donald Trump, that became a reason to promise that Haitians in Springfield would be deported.  He had found people who were both Blacks and immigrants, who could serve as the “them” in his politics of us-and-them.

It is fascist to start a political campaign from the choice of an enemy (this is the definition of politics by the most talented Nazi thinker, Carl Schmitt).  It is fascist to replace reason with emotion, to tell big lies (“create stories,” as Vance says) that appeal to a sense of vulnerability and exploit a feeling of difference.  The fantasy of barbarians in our cities violating basic social norms serves to gird the Trump-Vance story that legal, constitutional government is helpless and that only an angry mob backed by a new regime could get things done. 

It is worth knowing, in this connection, that the first major action of Hitler’s SS was the forced deportation of migrants.  About 17,000 people were deported, which generated the social instability that the Nazi government the used as justification for further oppression.  Trump and Vance plan to deport about a thousand times as many people….

In international politics, the key moment concerns Ukraine and its head of state.  Since February 2022, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelens’kyi, has been rightly understood and admired as a symbol of physical and political courage.  When Russia began its full-scale invasion that month, the American consensus was the Ukraine would crack within days and that Zelens’kyi would (and should) flee.  Instead, he stayed in Kyiv despite the approach of Russian assassins and the Russian army, rallied his people, and oversaw the successful defense of his country.  He has since visited the front every few weeks. 

This is how Trump characterized Zelens’kyi in September, echoing comments that he has made before: “Every time he came to our country, he’d walk away with $100 billion. He’s probably the greatest salesman on Earth.”  Trump seems threatened by Zelens’kyi.  As Trump has made clear numerous times, his first and only impulse is to give Putin what Putin wants.  The idea of taking risks to defend freedom from the Russian dictator is well beyond the pinprick-sized black hole that is Trump’s moral universe. 

And of course the claim itself is false.  The number is too big.  And the money does not go to Zelens’kyi himself, obviously.  That Zelens’kyi does personally profit is a favorite idea of Vance, who repeats Russian propaganda to this effect.  The money does not even, for the most part, go to the Ukrainian government.  Most of the military aid does to American companies who build new weapons for American stockpiles.  We then send old weapons to Ukraine, to which we assign a dollar value.

The essential thing, though, is the antisemitic trope Trump chose to express himself.  It goes like this.  Jews are cowards.  Jews never fight wars.  Jews stay away from the front.  Jews only cause wars that make other people suffer.  And then Jews make vast amounts of money from those wars.  Volodymyr Zelens’kyi, the Ukrainian president, is Jewish.  And thus “the greatest salesman on earth” for Trump.  And the corrupt owner of “yachts” for Vance.  A war profiteer, as in the antisemitic stereotype, not a courageous commander, as in reality. 

Indeed, most of what Trump says about Zelens’kyi, Ukraine, and and the war itself makes sense only within the antisemitic stereotype.  Trump never speaks about the Russian invasion itself.  He never recalls Russian war crimes.  He never mentions that Ukrainians are defending themselves or their basic ideas of what is right.  He certainly never admits that Zelens’kyi is the democratically-elected president of a country under vicious attack and who has comported himself with courage.  The war, for Trump, is just a scam — a Jewish scam. 

And that, of course, is why he thinks he can end it right away: he thinks he can just shoulder the Jew aside and deal with his fascist “friend” Putin, who for him is the “genius” in this situation, and who must be allowed to win.  Despite the evidence, Trump says that Russia always wins wars, dismissing both history (regular Russian losses such as the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the Afghan War) and the actual events of the ongoing Russian invasion, in which Ukraine has taken back half the territory it lost and driven the Russian fleet from the Black Sea.  Russia is counting on Trump.  They need him in power to win their war, and they know it. 

It need hardly be said that if Trump throws American power on the Russian side, the “deal” that follows will not end the war.  It will only mean that Russia is able to kill more Ukrainians faster.  Trump will then claim that the deal itself was beautiful and perfect — and try to change the subject from the slaughter he brought about through his antisemitic hubris and admiration of Russian fascism.

And, of course, Snyder explains, Trump has warned Jewish groups that if he loses, it will be the fault of Jews. Anti-Semitism will be Trump’s legacy.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, History, Lies, Trump

Former FBI Agent: What Trump Says About Guns, Crime, and Drugs Is Wrong

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2024 //
9

Retired FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi writes on the MSNBC website about the internal dangers to America. It’s not from immigrants, who are typically more law-abiding than the native-born, but from Neo-Nazi gangs.

He writes:

The federal indictment of 68 defendants accused of being members of (or being associated) with a criminal gang driven by race-based hate followed an investigation that led to the seizure of Nazi paraphernalia, including Adolf Hitler posters, and 97 pounds of fentanyl, federal officials said Wednesday. U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada, who announced the charges, called it one of the “largest takedowns in the history of the Department of Justice against a neo-Nazi, white supremacist, violent extremist organization.”

That announcement landing in the final weeks of a presidential election prompts us to contrast the facts of our crime problem with the fiction that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, would have us believe.

The dismantlement of the group that called itself the Peckerwoods, a San Fernando Valley arm of the notorious Aryan Brotherhood white supremacy organization, came in the form of charges for allegedracketeering, firearms trafficking, drug trafficking and financial fraud. If convicted as charged, some members, who adorn themselves with tattoos of swastikas and other hate symbols, could face life behind bars. The group was so heavily armed and so violent that the FBI deployed its elite Hostage Rescue Team from Quantico, Virginia, to support the arrests. According to the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, the Peckerwoods, a derogatory name historically used against white people, “has as its mission to plan attacks against racial, ethnic, religious minorities.”

Agents seized an arsenal of illegal guns, “bomb-making components” and dozens of kilograms of fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin, according to law enforcement officials.

The details of this multifaceted investigation reveal a significant component of America’s crime problem: hardened, U.S.-born criminals who traffic in the drugs, guns and violence plaguing our country. This contrasts with the fact-free fearmongering fabrications being sold to MAGA believers. It’s not that minorities don’t commit crimes; nor is that migrants never murder or rape. But Trump and Vance want voters to believe our gun, drug and violence problems are being driven by migrants when the opposite is true…

During the vice presidential debate, Vance claimed the vast majority of illegal guns used in crimes here come from Mexican cartels. The truth is quite different; it’s the U.S. that’s arming Mexican cartels. We have detailed data demonstrating the extent to which American weapons are fueling the violence in Mexico, right down to the make and model of the guns found at crime scenes across the border.

Please open the link to read more about crime statistics and Trump-Vance’s hateful and phony war against immigrants.

Categories Cruelty, Data, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Guns, Hoax, Lies, Trump

A Note to a Reader about October 7

By dianeravitch
October 8, 2024 //
16

A reader of the blog, who shall remain nameless, sends comments repeatedly to justify or minimize the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists. Her comments are so offensive to me that they are in moderation, meaning I read them before approving or deleting them.

The reader believes that the terrorists intended to attack only military targets and kill only soldiers. She suggests that Israel overstated the number of civilian deaths to win sympathy. She argues that only “one baby” was killed. She also has claimed that most civilian deaths were caused by Israeli fire. She has also written, in comments I did not publish, that women were not raped by the terrorists: anyone who says so is lying. Even the hundreds of young people gunned down at the Rave, the all-night dance party, were killed by IDF helicopter fire, not Hamas.

Her “evidence” is found in an article that makes most of these assertions. Her reading seems to be confined to sources that hate Israel’s very existence and look forward to it being eliminated or dissolved, as Israelis “go back where they came from.” How will that work for the millions who were born in Israel or were expelled by Arab nations?

The article was written by a British journalist, Robert Inlakesh, who loathes Israel. He has written many anti-Israel articles. Here is a quote from one of them:

Whether we look at the Israeli political elite, military, police, intelligence, society or media, we see genocidal mania. This is because their narcissistic supremacist ideology is collapsing before their very eyes, they are beginning to realize that maintaining apartheid is no longer viable.

The opportunity for the Israelis to implement the only solution that would have enabled them to continue their existence has passed. If the Zionist regime was actually serious about the Oslo Accords and simply accepted international law as the consensus for a so-called two-state solution, they could have perhaps proceeded and actually maintained their regime. However, allowing the Palestinian people to gain access to basic human rights in only 22% of historic Palestine was not possible for them under their racist expansionist ideology.

We are now reaching the final phase of this settler colonial project and the Israelis have come to the realization that maintaining their ethno-supremacist regime of absolute privilege will mean exterminating and ethnically cleansing everyone in their way. They are so immersed in their own collective form of narcissism, in which they view themselves as both the victim and hero of the story, that stopping now is impossible. This is also why Israeli society is split down the middle on the question of what kind of ethno-supremacist regime they seek: whether that will be a secular or religious regime going forward.

Therefore, with full US backing they are slowly committing national suicide. This may be a process that is somewhat delayed if a ceasefire is reached in Gaza that prevents the immediate end of the regime by military means, but the war will continue in other ways. The West Bank will likely end up becoming their punching bag until they can again escalate elsewhere and the only promise that can be made to their own people is a future of perpetual war.

In reading his articles, I can’t find anywhere that he calls Arab nations “ethnostates,” although by his definition they are.

I have been clear on this blog about my desire for a ceasefire, for peace, and for a two-state solution. I have strongly condemned Benjamin Netanyahu for his unwillingness to seeek peace. But I have also condemned Hamas, not only for the October 7 attack, but for their unwillingness to seek peace and for hiding their quarters under the cover of schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities. It’s not as if my opinion matters to world leaders. It doesn’t.

Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, in full knowledge that their attack would trigger an overwhelming Israeli military response. They were willing to sacrifice Gazan civilians because Hamas had secure underground hiding places for themselves

How do I know about the brutality of Hamas on October 7? I watched the videotapes made by the terrorists. I watched them murder people in their homes, their cars, their gardens, their bomb shelters. How do I know women were raped? Not only eyewitness testimony, but an indelible memory of a young Israeli woman lying in the back of a pickup truck, the bottom of her pants stained with blood, as terrorists sat around her, smiling broadly.

One house, to my knowledge, was hit by fire from an Israeli tank, and 13-14 Israelis who were sheltering there died.

Most of the carnage happened before the IDF arrived. The attack began about 6:30 am, and the Israeli forces did not get there until 3-4 pm. Why the long delay? An official inquiry will one day explain but Netanyahu won’t allow the inquiry until the fighting is over. Another despicable, self-serving action on his part. An impartial inquiry will surely fault him for failing to protect the peaceable kibbutzim that bordered Gaza, as well as the inexplicably slow response by the IDF to stop the attack.

As far as the number of children killed, UN sources say it was 29, not 1. At least 3,000 children in Gaza have died, but the number has doubtless multiplied since the story was written last November.

A site called Factcheck.org reported:

At least 29 children were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In addition, about 30 children were taken hostage by Hamas, the Associated Press reported…

There has been extensive news coverage of the Oct. 7 attack and the war, including stories on video footage from that day showing “Hamas gunmen cheering with apparent joy as they shot civilians on the road, and later stalking the pathways of kibbutzim and killing parents and children in their homes,” as BBC reported. 

As we have written, Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine has been working to identify the remains of those killed on Oct. 7. Forensic pathologist Chen Kugel, the head of the center, said the ages of those killed ranged from 3 months to 80 or 90 years, according to The Media Line, an American news outlet that covers the Middle East.

Kugel also told the Los Angeles Times that initially most of the bodies could be identified through DNA. Now, the staff’s work involves “reassembling and reconnecting pieces” of remains found in the landscapes where the killings occurred.

For example, what initially appeared to be a piece of charcoal was examined through a CT scan, Kugel said. The scan revealed, “These were people who were hugging one another and burned while they were tied together. It might be a parent and a child.”

Who is Factcheck.org?

Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation.

We currently receive support from the APPC endowment, which includes funding from the Annenberg Foundation and from the Annenberg School for Communication Trust at the University of Pennsylvania.

See its website for other funders.

Categories Education Reform

Revealed: Trump Sent COVID Tests to Putin in 2020. Best Buddies!

By dianeravitch
October 8, 2024 //
16

During the height of the pandemic, President Trump sent COVID test kits to his good friend Vladimir Putin. So says a new book by Bob Woodward. Since Trump has been out of office, he has spoken to Putin at least seven times, Woodward says.

The Washington Post reports:

As the coronavirus tore through the world in 2020, and the United States and other countries confronted a shortage of tests designed to detect the illness, then-President Donald Trump secretly sent coveted tests to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

Putin, petrified of the virus, accepted the supplies but took pains to prevent political fallout — not for him, but for his American counterpart. He cautioned Trump not to reveal that he had dispatched the scarce medical equipment to Moscow, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward.

Putin, according to the book, told Trump, “I don’t want you to tell anybody because people will get mad at you, not me.”

Four years later, the personal relationship between the two men appears to have persisted, Woodward reports, as Trump campaigns to return to the White House and Putin orchestrates his bloody assault on Ukraine. In early 2024, the former president ordered an aide away from his office at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, so he could conduct a private phone call with the Russian leader, according to Woodward’s account.

The book does not describe what the two men purportedly discussed, and it quotes a Trump campaign official casting doubt on the supposed contact. But the unnamed Trump aide cited in the book indicated that the GOP standard-bearer may have spoken to Putin as many as seven times since Trump left the White House in 2021.

These interactions between Trump and the authoritarian leader of a country at war with an American ally form the basis of Woodward’s conclusion that Trump is worse than Richard M. Nixon, whose presidency was undone by the Watergate scandal exposed a half-century ago by Woodward and his Washington Post colleague Carl Bernstein.

“Trump was the most reckless and impulsive president in American history and is demonstrating the very same character as a presidential candidate in 2024,” Woodward writes in the book, “War,” which is set to be released Oct. 15.

Woodward concludes that Trump is unfit for office while Biden exhibited “steady and purposeful leadership.”

The book also covers Biden’s decision making in relation to the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Categories Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »