A TED Talk For The New Year December 31, 2019December 26, 2019 It ends with: “We have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity.” Something to work on in the New Year. A good start would be a president with empathy. Remember the president famous for saying, “I feel your pain?” Who, after leaving office, worked to attack problems of poverty, disease, and oppression? You will be excused if you’re not sure whether I mean Carter, Clinton, or Obama — it largely applies to all of them. We need one like that again now. Speaking of which, did you see Paul Krugman’s argument that “Republicans aren’t Scrooges — they’re much worse“? “The Cruelty of a Trump Christmas.” This is surely not true of all Republicans or even most. But too may Republicans have, for sure, been feeding the wrong wolf. Krugman makes a strong case. Finally, if you have time, this touching story of 1930’s atrocity and 2019 forgiveness. Listen, everybody: I greatly appreciate your readership. HAVE A HEALTHY, HAPPY NEW YEAR! So much is riding on 2020.
Long Before “The Perfect Call” There Was This December 30, 2019December 27, 2019 Trump had Mulvaney block military aid to Ukraine in 2017. “The stated reason at the time,” reports Seth Abramson, “was Trump didn’t want to upset Russia.” Leading one to wonder: who’s side is America on? Russia’s? America’s? Look past the sarcasm that begins the thread — I know from personal experience that sarcasm, though deeply satisfying to the writer, rarely clarifies an argument — and consider, for example: 4/ The Ukraine scandal begins in *March 2016*. Yes—I’m serious. Trump has been scheming over how to use Ukraine to his benefit for *over four and a half years*. The July 25 Zelensky call was a *minor episode* in a *years-long* course of conduct that was criminal, start to finish. . . . and . . . 6/ So Kremlin agent Manafort—who signed a deal with Putin lieutenant Deripaska in 2006 to aid Putin in America; Google it—joins Trump’s campaign and *immediately* Trump is *proactively* setting up an anti-Ukraine foreign policy that goes *beyond* opposing sanctions on Russia. . . . and so much more. I know the mind has the tendency to shut down over all this. Those of us of a certain age are still trying to remember it’s now “Ukraine” not “the Ukraine.” But Russia is winning. Putin is winning. America is losing. Democracy is losing. It’s worth our attention. Even if it takes reading more than once.
I Like Mike – 2 December 28, 2019December 27, 2019 Steve G, reacting to yesterday’s post: “Bloomberg vs. Trump . . . Scylla vs. Charybdis.” → Scylla and Charybdis! Yes! Except Mike is honest and Trump is not. Mike is steady, gracious, and dignified; Trump is vulgar, vicious, and volatile. Mike is doing this to make a better world; Trump fell into it for personal gain. Mike fights for gun-safety; Trump, for the NRA. Mike is enormously charitable; Trump was fined $2 million for abusing his (tiny, insignificant) foundation. Trump favors journalist-murdering dictators; Mike prefers our traditional allies. Trump hates Barack Obama but admires Vladimir Putin; Mike admires Obama and understands that Putin staged a successful surprise attack on our country — that is ongoing. Mike ran the most important city in the world for 12 years; Trump ran Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Airline, and bankrupted the Trump Taj Mahal. Trump is a sociopath, Mike is not. As to their both being billionaires who instinctively favor the very rich, Mike really is a billionaire – 54 times over. And if elected, he would not be the first rich New Yorker to champion the interests of “the working man” (as working men and women used to be called) and the poor. Former New York governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt beat him to it. For the record, I like Joe and Pete and Amy and Cory and Andrew and Deval and all our other candidates, too! But while they’re — necessarily — pouring their resources into the four early states (that won’t determine the outcome next November), Mike is funding critical work in swing states (that will). He aims to increase the odds some Democrat will beat Trump/Putin in November, even if it’s not he. I like that a lot. And he poured a fortune into helping us win the House in 2018. I like that, too. Read a short article here. And if you have time, I again suggest this podcast.
I Like Mike December 27, 2019December 24, 2019 And I think you may like him, too, after listening to this podcast. It raises scary strategic issues of which anyone hoping to win the White House should be aware. The really hopeful news? Whether or not he wins the nomination, he is spending heavily — now, in the states that matter — to improve the odds that some Democrat beats Trump. Have a great weekend!
The Definitive Webster December 26, 2019December 25, 2019 In case you missed this last week, from William Webster, long-time friend of William Barr and Rudy Giuliani: I Headed the F.B.I. and C.I.A. There’s a Dire Threat to the Country I Love. The privilege of being the only American in our history to serve as the director of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. gives me a unique perspective and a responsibility to speak out about a dire threat to the rule of law in the country I love. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order. Today, the integrity of the institutions that protect our civil order is, tragically, under assault from too many people whose job it should be to protect them. The rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy, the principle that protects every American from the abuse of monarchs, despots and tyrants. Every American should demand that our leaders put the rule of law above politics. I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government. Over my nine-plus years as F.B.I. director, I reported to four honorable attorneys general. Each clearly understood the importance of the rule of law in our democracy and the critical role the F.B.I. plays in the enforcement of our laws. They fought to protect both, knowing how important it was that our F.B.I. remain independent of political influence of any kind. As F.B.I. director, I served two presidents, one a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who selected me in part because I was a Republican, and one a Republican, Ronald Reagan, whom I revered. Both of these presidents so respected the bureau’s independence that they went out of their way not to interfere with or sway our activities. I never once felt political pressure. I know firsthand the professionalism of the men and women of the F.B.I. The aspersions cast upon them by the president and my longtime friend, Attorney General William P. Barr, are troubling in the extreme. Calling F.B.I. professionals “scum,” as the president did, is a slur against people who risk their lives to keep us safe. Mr. Barr’s charges of bias within the F.B.I., made without providing any evidence and in direct dispute of the findings of the nonpartisan inspector general, risk inflicting enduring damage on this critically important institution. The country can ill afford to have a chief law enforcement officer dispute the Justice Department’s own independent inspector general’s report and claim that an F.B.I. investigation was based on “a completely bogus narrative.” In fact, the report conclusively found that the evidence to initiate the Russia investigation was unassailable. There were more than 100 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents during the 2016 campaign, and Russian efforts to undermine our democracy continue to this day. I’m glad the F.B.I. took the threat seriously. It is important, Mr. Wray said last week, that the inspector general found that “the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.” As a lawyer and a former federal judge, I made it clear when I headed both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that the rule of law would be paramount in all we did. While both agencies are staffed by imperfect human beings, the American people should understand that both agencies are composed of some of the most law-abiding, patriotic and dedicated people I have ever met. While their faces and actions are not seen by most Americans, rest assured that they are serving our country well. I have complete confidence in Mr. Wray, and I know that the F.B.I. is not a broken institution. It is a professional agency worthy of respect and support. The derision and aspersions are dangerous and unwarranted. I’m profoundly disappointed in another longtime, respected friend, Rudy Giuliani, who had spent his life defending our people from those who would do us harm. His activities of late concerning Ukraine have, at a minimum, failed the smell test of propriety. I hope he, like all of us, will redirect to our North Star, the rule of law, something so precious it is greater than any man or administration. This difficult moment demands the restoration of the proper place of the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. as bulwarks of law and order in America. This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law. Republicans and Democrats alike should defend it above all else. In my nearly 96 years, I have seen our country rise above extraordinary challenges — the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, segregation, assassinations, the resignation of a president and 9/11, to name just a few. I continue to believe in and pray for the ability of all Americans to overcome our differences and pursue the common good. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order.
St. Nick’s Holiday Giving Guide December 24, 2019December 20, 2019 I’ll bet you can’t name all eight reindeer and the seven dwarfs. I sure couldn’t. On Blitzen, on Prancer and Bambi and Dancer! I knew there were Dopey and Sneezy and Needy and Wheezy — but “Doc”? How could a “Doc” have gotten in there. And did you know that Rudolph is not one of the eight? But I digress. Nicholas Kristof — neither a reindeer nor a dwarf but a mensch — writes for the thriving, indispensable New York Times. He offers a giving guide for the man or woman who has everything — in a world where so many have naught. Deworm a child for 50 cents? Give a family a flock of chicks for $20? He makes great suggestions. Or how about this? Give the New York Times itself! Have you noticed? The days are getting longer! (Eat your heart out, Argentina.) Summer’s in the air! Merry Christmas!
Hallelujah! December 22, 2019December 21, 2019 But first: See the Richard Jewell movie. Really good. (And you’ve seen the Mr. Rogers movie, right?) And now: From Christianity Today . . . Trump Should Be Removed From Office In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment. The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. . . . But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral. The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character. . . . In 1998, we wrote [that Bill Clinton should be sent packing]. Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. . . . We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern. Amen. The D.N.C. Chairman Knows No One Is Happy. Neither Is He. Happy Hanukkah! Take the next eight days off! And whether Jewish or not, can we all make the oil we consume last eight times as long? Until we can wean ourselves off it altogether? And can stop using coal altogether?
The Year In Hope December 20, 2019December 19, 2019 Despite it all, there’s much cause for hope. Trump may mock TIME’s 16-year-old Person of the Year, but for a lot of us — including President Barack Obama — she and her generation inspire — he takes a couple of minutes here to explain. Browse through President Obama’s reasons to feel hopeful, from the cure that’s been found for Ebola to a simple act of spontaneous kindness at a Waffle House. Each with a link to “the rest of the story.” And then again, there’s also much cause for concern, when so many good, bright people have more trust in Putin’s propaganda and FOX News than in the FBI and the New York Times. I’ve been going back and forth — cordially! — with my classmate from that dinner I wrote about earlier this month. Yesterday, he offered this: “Here is an unimpeachably well-reasoned methodical non-emotional debunking of the impeachment articles. I challenge you to find any flaws in its case that there is the complete absence of provable facts that relate to the Constitutional language on impeachment. Your party has now saturated America in the world of fact-free — ergo lawless — Congressional promulgation. This action will indefinitely stain the Democratic Party as an unabashed abuser of the rule of law. I expect you and countless sane other ordinary Democrats will come around to seeing it an extraordinary political mistake and will eventually condemn Pelosi for it.” This is the same guy, whom I’ll call “Bob” — charming, smart, good-hearted, gracious, and open-minded — who told me Hillary had diverted $2 million from the Clinton Foundation to pay for Chelsea’s wedding. He was blithely spreading totally false, damning information, violating the motto of his alma mater and the Ninth Commandment about bearing false witness. The good news? When I sent him the link debunking it as utter nonsense, he agreed that maybe it wasn’t true after all. So I replied: → Thanks, Bob. The piece you sent me says: . . . The allegation is that President Trump somehow abused his authority by attempting to make foreign aid to Ukraine, or else a White House visit for the Ukrainian president, contingent on that country helping investigate 2016 election meddling and/or Joe Biden’s interference in the Ukrainian justice system. . . . First off, I’d strike the word “somehow.” Second, I’d note that Trump aides on the famous “Javelin missiles / I’d like you to do us a favor though” call were sufficiently alarmed that the transcript was sequestered onto a secret server, released (like the Javelin missiles) only after the whistle-blower blew the whistle. Third, I’d note that Joe Biden didn’t interfere in the Ukrainian Justice system for his own gain, or his son’s, he was executing United States policy that coincided with the policy of our allies. Read the whole story in the Financial Times. And note the pivotal point: we and our allies were all focused on getting rid of that prosecutor not because he WAS coming down hard on companies like Burisma, but because he WASN’T. Fourth, I’d note that a Republican Trump appointee, who had given $1 million to Trump’s Inaugural, and who initially may have fudged the truth a little to protect the president, subsequently testified under oath on TV — as you’ve likely seen — that “yes” there was a quid pro quo and “everybody was in the loop.” And 16 other witnesses, including 3 I think requested by the Republicans, were on basically the same page. So what if, as surely seems to have been the case, Trump DID hold up desperately needed aid to an ally . . . an ally that had been invaded and was under attack by Putin’s Russia . . . as leverage to get that ally’s president to go in front of TV cameras and announce an investigation into Trump’s leading political rival . . . as those 17 witnesses, in varying ways . . . and as the transcript itself . . . (and as common sense) . . . say he did? Is that OK? Or does it rise in your mind to the level of an abuse of his presidential power? (I.e.: using his power for his ends rather than the ends of the American people.) Your email takes the position that even to CONSIDER the answer to that question, as the impeachment proceedings are meant to do, “indefinitely stains the Democrats who are asking it as unabashed abusers of the law.” But if you don’t consider THAT question legitimate, let me ask you where you would draw the line. What if, instead of invading Ukraine, Russia had annexed the Loire Valley and Trump had conditioned aid to France not just on announcing an investigation into his opponent, but also on a secret promise to let him build a hotel across from the Louvre once he was out of office? If THAT would strike you as a clear abuse of his power, help me understand why Ukraine instead of France makes a difference. Why a potentially lucrative hotel deal instead of help destroying his leading political rival makes a difference. Please read that Financial Times article and let me know whether it’s helpful at all in seeing why Democrats are making the case we are. Thanks for keeping an open mind! (And as for literal indictable felonious “crimes,” what do you make of this – which I thought should be added as a third article of impeachment, along with maybe a dozen others?) Your pal, Andy Have a great weekend!
What We Shouldn’t Do — But It’s Fun To Imagine December 19, 2019December 18, 2019 Listening to the impeachment debate, with one side saying Trump’s done nothing impeachable — his call to the Ukrainian president was a perfect call, after all, and the aides who immediately sequestered it onto a highly-secure server were wrong to be appalled — I had an idea. I hesitate to even tell you the idea, because it’s a terrible idea, and out of character for me (I hope!), and we absolutely shouldn’t have done it. But watching the debate, I kept thinking that, in some alternative universe, every time someone said something to the effect that Trump had not obstructed Congress . . . or any of so many other misleading or disingenuous things so many of them said . . . . . . every time they did that, 233 Democratic House members should have shouted: “Scumbag! Bullshit!” Two seconds, tops. But every time. Can you imagine the shock? How grotesquely inappropriate it would have been? It is, I repeat, a terrible idea. But in its terribleness, might the public not have realized (and perhaps even the Republican House members themselves) that — wait! the President of the United States says these things on television in front of adoring crowds for all to hear. The President! How can this be happening? How can people be defending him? How can they defend someone who glad-hands Putin and half a dozen other murderous dictators — but not a single democratically-elected ally? So yes: it’s a terrible idea. I’m glad they didn’t do it. But it might make a good dream sequence in the movie. Trump is so awful that — even though I understand it’s unlikely he’ll be convicted in the Senate — I actually got out of my chair Tuesday, stopped raising money for a couple of hours, and went with a friend to one of those hundreds of 5:30 pm rallies. Notable, because I never go to rallies. But this is not business as usual. I was the big green “P” in a row of us along the road spelling I M P E A C H . Maybe you saw me. Stephen G.: “Re yesterday’s post and the one last month . . . Michael Bloomberg told people what they could drink. He’s funding dozens of “grassroots” anti gun campaigns in cities but keeping his name silent but, but… Michael wants armed security for himself! [Here, Stephen inserted a photo of Mike with armed security guards.] Democrats…hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony. Republicans…hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony. My money or my life…I’m thinking, I’m thinking.” → Really? I don’t think it’s hypocritical for a gun-safety advocate running for president, who’s a public figure worth $54 billion, to have armed security. Presidents Clinton and Obama were for gun safety, and they had armed security. And Mike didn’t prevent anyone from drinking what they wanted; just tried to tilt the incentives a bit and raise awareness hoping to improve their health. Is wishing people good health a bad thing? He had nothing to gain from it himself. (I also applaud his extensive anti-smoking efforts.) As to hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony – by seeming to make them equivalent for both parties, I think you get it wrong. E.g., re mendacity: the Washington Post found that Obama made 28 false or misleading statements in eight years as president; Trump, 13,000+ in his first three years. I’m not sure how many of the 28 or the 13,000+ could be fairly termed “mendacious” – but I sure don’t think 28 is even remotely equivalent to 13,000+. Likewise, comparing Republican and Democratic politicians, for hypocrisy and gluttony. I think you’re more likely to find Republican politicians quietly arranging for abortions or having gay sex while voting to criminalize both (say), than Democrats. More likely to have wealthy Republican politicians voting to lower taxes on the gluttonous (say) than Democrats, who generally vote to raise them. But I appreciate the feedback — and I will raise a glass of my own this holiday season to your right to drink as much sugar-based soda (or smoke as much tobacco) as you want. We really need to work at listening to each other. So please don’t stop telling me what you really think.
The Political Landscape December 18, 2019December 17, 2019 Have you seen this? We Are Republicans [Including Kellyanne Conway’s Husband] and We Want Trump Defeated Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics. . . . That’s why we are announcing the Lincoln Project, an effort to highlight our country’s story and values, and its people’s sacrifices and obligations. This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities. . . . The American presidency transcends the individuals who occupy the Oval Office. Their personality becomes part of our national character. Their actions become our actions, for which we all share responsibility. Their willingness to act in accordance with the law and our tradition dictate how current and future leaders will act. Their commitment to order, civility and decency are reflected in American society. Mr. Trump fails to meet the bar for this commitment. He has neither the moral compass nor the temperament to serve. . . . But this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. They have done no less than abdicate their Article I responsibilities. . . . What Bloomberg is up to. Beating Trump whoever the nominee is. And (in the same column) a word about his mistakes. “Really good mayors make mistakes all the time,” said Sheekey. “And you know why? Because they do things. You know who doesn’t make mistakes? People that don’t do anything.” John E. “Re yesterday’s ‘Listen To Lindsey … You’re right. Republicans have now set the precedent that it’s okay to lie, cheat and steal in order to get what you want in politics. There’s no going back. So when will the Dems start getting with the program? The high road leads to a cliff that they all jump off. The low road leads to victory. I refuse to participate any longer in this thoroughly corrupt system.” → No. Please participate. We won in 2018 without cheating. If all of us vote, volunteer, and give what we can, we’ll win in 2020. One of the many things your DNC dollars are going to support: the hyper-local war room. Jim Burt: “Once upon a time, there was a political party that had seen some electoral success, but experienced a declining share of the vote, at least partly because its actual program did not appeal to the voters. So it adopted a ‘perpetual campaign’ and employed racist and nativist rhetoric and relentless negativity [“I’ve heard unemployment as high as forty-two percent” – A.T.] to distract voters from its actual plans. “Through a fluke resulting from the delusion of hard-line conservatives that they could control the party leader, it gained power and immediately began subverting democratic norms. “I’m describing, of course, the Nazi Party, which was virtually invisible in the 1928 elections but gained voters rapidly with its perpetual negative campaigning while the elected government of the Weimar Republic issued decrees to deal with the problems caused by the onset of the Great Depression. The Nazis reached a high point of 32% of the vote in the early 1932 elections, but in further elections that year saw their percentage erode. The top leadership of the party saw continued erosion in their future, but were saved when old-line conservatives decided they could work with Hitler. “The rest is history. Or is it the future?” → It is history! Our next president will not lie constantly and use words like “scumbag” and “bullshit” in front of TV cameras. As Lindsey Graham so rightly said, ““Impeachment is not about punishment; impeachment is about cleansing the office.” So even if Trump is not convicted in the Senate, enough good Republicans — and there are loads of good Republicans — will join everybody else and help to vote him out of office.