Monthly Archives: January 2021

Four Threats

The Wilmington massacre of 1898 was actually a coup d'état, in which a mob of 2,000 white supremacists overturned a biracial city government, burned black homes and businesses like the Black-owned Daily Record pictured above, and murdered hundreds of people. This is recounted in Four Threats.
The Wilmington massacre of 1898 was actually a coup d’état, in which a mob of 2,000 white supremacists overturned a biracial city government, burned black homes and businesses like the Black-owned Daily Record pictured above, and murdered hundreds of people. This is recounted in Four Threats.

In the final days of Donald Trump’s presidency all hell was breaking loose. A friend, equally alarmed at what seemed on the surface to be a national break with reality and severe psychosis, recommended Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman. It was a good read and I don’t regret the time spent with it. The publisher’s blurb is a solid summary of what the book attempted to present:

In Four Threats, Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman explore five moments in history when democracy in the U.S. was under siege: the 1790s, the Civil War, the Gilded Age, the Depression, and Watergate. These episodes risked profound — even fatal — damage to the American democratic experiment. From this history, four distinct characteristics of disruption emerge. (1) Political polarization, (2) racism and nativism, (3) economic inequality, and (4) excessive executive power — alone or in combination — have threatened the survival of the republic, but it has survived — so far. What is unique, and alarming, about the present moment in American politics is that all four conditions exist.

Despite its promise to get to the root of our democratic rot, Four Threats could not bring itself to name the primary cause of economic inequality — capitalism. Four Threats could not bring itself to indict the Constitution itself for the gridlock, frustration, dysfunction, and attenuated democracy that perpetuates political polarization. Mettler and Lieberman acknowledge unequal representation of the Senate, the undemocratic Electoral College, but then they just throw up their hands:

“These and other features of the Constitution certainly do make American politics less democratic because they render elections less fair and discourage accountability to the majority of citizens. Many have made cogent calls for them to be changed. But such changes are unlikely to happen. Amending the Constitution is difficult under the best of circumstances, and probably next to impossible in today’s polarized climate. Moreover, those in power are the beneficiaries of current constitutional arrangements, so they have little incentive to change them. As beneficial as some of these reforms might be for American democracy, we need to look elsewhere in the short term to restore democracy’s promise.”

The book never takes us to that “elsewhere.”

In their impassioned plea to save democracy, the authors cite a Pew opinion survey showing that Conservatives and Liberals both share a strong commitment to democracy. But they ignore the glaring fact that today’s Conservatives have quite a different notion of democracy than the rest of us. Conservative “democracy” more resembles Margaret Atwood’s Gilead than the Iowa caucuses.

In order to deal with polarization, Mettler and Lieberman argue, we need dialog. We need to talk openly about issues that really matter, with the preservation of democracy in mind, and cognizent that we have not yet extended democracy to all. It’s a sweet, noble — and damned naive — sentiment. One wonders if the authors have personally ever tried to argue for democracy for everyone with a white supremacist, listened dispassionately to conspiracy nuts hoping for a “storm” to usher in mass executions, or tried to agree on facts with people who don’t believe in science or in protecting fellow citizens by using face masks?

Four Threats was empty of the pragmatic prescriptions promised when discounting more radical solutions. Changing the Constitution? Why not? Letting the South secede? Bringing down the entire corrupt system through national strikes or protest in order to rebuild something that actually works? Again, why not? We’re long past the point that we need to place a “do not resuscitate” notation in the patient’s chart. Software is periodically refactored, shacks are bulldozed to make way for more solid structures. We even change our underwear. Why the hell not government?

An especially glaring omission in Four Threats was its failure to address American imperialism — a factor responsible for much of 20th and 21st century executive overreach. The Bush administration’s dismantling of Constitutional laws and norms, for example, were not sufficiently covered in the book, as they were in Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side. We are still living with global surveillance, an American gulag, secret courts, and violations of several of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

While Four Threats to its credit spends time on Reonstruction and touches on Jim Crow, it never really indicts White America itself for white supremacy. Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law provides a similarly dispassionate look at the institutions of white supremacy. But we [white folks] created this system, and if you really want to understand where it came from Carol Anderson’s White Rage will gladly hand you a mirror.

To truly understand the Capitol riots, read Carol Anderson. White America can never stand for an improvement in the status or power of Black Americans. So when Georgia turned the tides of the 2020 presidential election and thwarted control of the Senate by America’s openly white supremacist party, that was a bridge too far for White America. It was White Rage we were witnessing at the Capitol, threatening to bring down the entire national project. It very well could have, and they’ve promised to bring their guns next time.

Mettler’s and Lieberman’s blindness to the profound perversity of America’s citizens is possibly the book’s worst deficit. Why do snake oil and bible salesmen repeatedly prey upon — and originate in — White America? We fancy ourselves a nation of dreamers and builders, but in fact we are a nation of deranged, self-destructive, science-denying, racist, hating, religious fanatics. Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland: Who America Went Haywire makes the case that this insanity is embedded in our national DNA. So if you think the violent mobs you saw on the news on January 6th were something new and unexpected, just read Andersen’s profiles of those who built this country.

This is who we are.

Juvenile Justice and School Resource Officers in New Bedford

As of January 1st, 2021 Massachusetts law on School Resource Officers (SROs) has changed.

In past years the deployment of SRO’s was entirely up to the Chief of Police. But the choice of whether to place armed police in schools is now entirely up to school superintendents.

When Governor Baker signed S.2963, the compromise police reform bill, it redefined many elements of the SRO program, striking Section 37P in its entirety, and now gives superintendents the final word on whether they want armed police in district schools:

“(d) For the purpose of fostering a safe and healthy environment for all students through strategic and appropriate use of law enforcement resources and to achieve positive outcomes for youth and public safety, a chief of police, at the request of the superintendent and subject to appropriation, shall assign at least 1 school resource officer to serve the city, town, commonwealth charter school, regional school district or county agricultural school. In the case of a regional school district, commonwealth charter school or county agriculture school, the chief of police of the city or town in which the school is located shall, at the request of the superintendent, assign the school resource officer who may be the same officer for all schools in the city or town.”

I’ve attached a PDF of the legislation.

The New Bedford schools, which last October kicked off a community “conversation” with a propaganda video supporting SROs, have now enlisted community members to help improve the program. But instead of improving the optics of their SRO program, the school district now needs to justify its continued existence. And there are two questions the School Superintendent must answer:

  1. what risks do placing armed police in schools pose to children, particularly children of color?
  2. has the police presence in schools actually kept children safe and deterred rampage shootings?

The NAACP New Bedford Branch is sponsoring a community discussion on January 28th from 6-7PM via Zoom which may offer some answers to these questions — questions the schools ought to be asking as well. The panel will feature: Leon Smith, Seq., Executive Director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice; Dr. Ricardo Rosa, Co-Chair of New Bedford Coalition to Save Our Schools; Matthew Cregor, Staff Attorney at Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee; and will be moderated by NAACP member Moriah Wiggins.

Everyone is welcome to attend. Connect via Zoom at 6PM on Thursday, January 28th:

Tomorrow, don’t forget to set your clock back to 2008

Tomorrow Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president at a Capitol which now resembles Iraq’s Green Zone. The FBI is vetting all 25,000 National Guard troops who are bivouacking there for the first time in centuries — just in case some of them want to turn American weaponry against the new president. In addition to the National Guard there will be almost 1,000 active-duty military providing medical and bomb disposal support services.

For the 74 million Americans who voted for the outgoing president it doesn’t look much like a democracy. For most, only continued white supremacy makes America a democracy. And for many of the 81 million Americans who voted for Biden, myself included, it won’t feel lik much of a democracy either. For all our wishful thinking, there’s no rolling back the clock on who we are and what we’ve become. Very few of the 155 million people who voted for either candidate in the last election truly believe in full democracy, that is, both at home and abroad.

For years Americans have recognized that democracy and white supremacy are incompatible. Current events now force us to recognize that white supremacy leads only to authoritarianism and mob rule. And if we have the courage to look back with clear eyes on our history, we see it has always been this way.

The Patriot Act, FISA courts, the surveillance state, and the demonization and criminilzation of refugees, have become permanent fixtures under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Conservatives defend fascists while Liberals have now thrown both fascists and intemperate people off social media, proposed extensions of the No Fly List, drafted new anti-terrorism laws, and are now considering relaxing limits to all sorts of surveillance. After 9/11 we have not heard a peep from Democrats about retiring any of the anti-democratic laws and security measures that followed, as they continue to abrogate foreign policy decisions to an increasingly imperial presidency.

For many of us on the Left, Democrats cannot be relied upon to be any better stewards of democracy than Republicans. They will continue to be unreliable allies in police and criminal justice reform, housing, and universal healthcare. Judging by Biden appointments to-date, the Democratic Party’s true constituency continues to be corporate America. It remains to be seen if Democrats will actually help students drowning in debt, families losing their homes, people crushed by medical costs, or if they are willing to give up our long addiction to American Exceptionalism. There is ample reason to doubt this last one.

It’s fair to say that tomorrow, as Joe Biden takes office at noon, progressives will have a new political opponent who, for the most part, does not share anywhere near the same vision of what this country could be. Progressives and Centrists may have both worked to rid the country of Donald J. Trump. But the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. And, so that this is clearer, our remaining enemy is neoliberalism not my well-meaning Democratic friends who haven’t really examined it very closely.

One unquestioned aspect of neoliberalism is maintaining a monstrous military to intervene at a moment’s notice to protect American interests, and to force neoliberalism (usually mis-labeled as “democracy”) down the throats of even nations who don’t want it — all in the name of nation-building. Over decades this has led to U.S.-supported coups all over the world, insurrections, assassinations, and regime change — in other countries, of course, never ours until now. But now the chickens have come home to roost.

Bipartisan war-mongering and constant regime change efforts revealthat America has no real commitment to democracy as a principle. Neoliberalism’s bipartisan sidekick is neoconservativism, another ideology based on American supremacy and the notion that we are obligated to project our “supremacy” or “exceptional” virtue using the biggest, most lethal arsenal in the world. If it sounds evil expressed this way, it’s because it is evil.

As we move from a Republican administration, which literally tried to build a wall around America to shut the world out, to a Democratic adminstration built from spare parts of the 2008 Obama presidency, we move from isolation to international engagement. Some of that engagement, such as restoring the Paris Climate Accords, is very welcome. Unfortunately much of the international engagement we can expect in the next four years will not be so good. We are about to witness the trimphant return of both neoliberalism and neoconservatism. And what good is the biggest, baddest military in the world if you don’t use it liberally and keep it in practice?

Yesterday Joe Biden announced that Victoria Nuland will be his Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Nuland, who camped out at various think tanks after leaving her role as Dick Cheney’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and then Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, is married to Robert Kagan. Kagan was co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, an organization that relentlessly cheer-led the invasion of Iraq. People forget that when America’s president changed from Bush to Obama, American foreign policy didn’t change along with presidents.

Nuland’s disgraceful involvement in regime change efforts (and the wars they require) should have immediately disqualified her as Biden’s pick. In 2014 Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussed the U.S. removing Ukraine’s elected president Victor Yanukovych. The Ukraine had backed away from a U.S. trade deal in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia. At the same time, a EU trade agreement was about to create new EU customers in the Ukraine. When a phone call of Nuland and Pyatt’s support for a coup to get rid of Yanukovych was leaked, Europeans were incensed and German Chancellor Angela Merkel was livid. It hadn’t helped that Nuland expressed utter contempt for the European Union. “Fuck the EU!” Nuland was heard saying on the same leaked call. The rest of the sordid coup story involves Nuland’s backchannel talks with Oleh Tyahnybok, a Ukrainian fascist.

Besides her regime change efforts in Syria and Libya, this was nothing new for Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton was involved in another coup in Honduras — in which the Honduran military supported by the U.S. goverment impounded ballot boxes and forced the likely winner into exile. Clinton regarded the exiled candidate, Manuel Zelaya, as another “troublemaker” like Hugo Chavez, and she quickly organized new elections with pro-American OAS “partners” once it was clear that Zelaya could not re-enter the country. No need to point out that this is precisely the same strategy for overturning the 2020 presidential election recommended by Michael Flynn and attempted by Ted Cruz and a host of other Republican plotters. But Clinton got a free pass from Democrats because her crimes were not directed against Americans, just brown people somewhere else.

Nuland’s choice signals that the Biden adminstration will renew American provocations of Russia — in addition to all the other nations we currently sanction and meddle with. Last year Nuland wrote in Foreign Affairs that “The coming U.S. presidential election offers the United States a chance to get off defense, restore the strength and confidence of the democratic world, and close the holes in its security after years of drift and division. Once that resolve is firmly on display, the United States can seize the moment of renewal at home and stagnation in Russia to stretch out a hand again.” But Victoria (“Fuck the EU”) Nuland is precisely the wrong person to stretch out her claws to Europeans who have a talent for remembering history.

With U.S. military installations in Eastern Europe already literally ringing Russia, it’s not clear what sort of “holes” Nuland really thinks need plugging. Nuland has proposed even greater militarization of Russia’s borders, stepped-up VOA and other propaganda efforts, and a return to the halcyon days of the Cold War. “Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin.” Joe Biden has apparently swallowed this Kool-Aid.

Many Liberals recognize (even embrace) Biden’s explicit reset of the clock from Trumpworld of 2020 to Obamaworld of 2008. But if Biden succeeds in replacing Trump’s isolationism with the muscular American Exceptionalism that preceded it — as Nuland’s appointment clearly signals — expect more global war and no relief from our trillion dollar “defense” and spy agency budgets. And don’t expect Biden to stop provoking China either or repair lapsed or broken friendships with traditional allies. These relationships have been destroyed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Forbes reports that Europe may have finally given up on a pro-Brexit America which continually insulted the EU project and thumbed its nose at former allies. Biden had asked the EU to delay a new trade deal with China, to not permit member nations to integrate with Chinese digital technology, and to not tax or regulate American Big Tech. An impatient, if not fed-up, Europe showed it wasn’t going to play along with a new U.S. reassertion of power, even if Biden was a familiar face.

The days of Americans barking orders and allies snapping to attention seem to be a thing of the past. Like their Republican cousins, Democrats just don’t realize it yet.

Let’s talk about antisemitism

Among the many unsettling images from last Wednesday’s attempted coup at the Capitol were vicious attacks on Capitol police officers, bombs, terrorists with stun guns and spears, a lynch mob with its own gallows, a mob prepared to kidnap legislators, numerous Confederate flags, with many of the participants screaming anti-semitic and racist slurs.

One of the insurrectionists, Robert Keith Packer of Virginia, sported a sweatshirt reading “Camp Auschwitz – Work Brings Freedom.” Packer’s presence at the Capitol reminded us of the very real American anti-semitism which, most starkly, resulted in the murders of 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, and an attack on the Poway synagogue in 2019 which left one dead and three injured.

That year was especially bad because, in addition to Poway, there had also been an attempt to blow up a synagogue in Pueblo, Colorado, followed by a shooting in a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, and a mass-stabbing during Hanukkah in Monsey, New York.

There is no denying that anti-semitism exists. It is toxic and it is pervasive. At Passover each year we recite the line “in every generation they rise up against us.” In good years the oppression is universal. In bad years, it’s all too literal.

But one of the memes that has come out of the unrest and displays of hatred in this country is the claim that both the Left and Right are equally guilty of hatred and violence. These claims have been so powerful that they have become potent weapons. Precisely as intended, they resulted in a purge of thousands of Leftist members of the British Labor Party. In the United States, progressive Democrats have had the same target drawn on their backs.

While memes like this may tap into a naive desire to return to an imaginary “center,” there is really no center to return to. The Democrats have moved right since Clinton, but the Republicans have moved into fascist territory since Trump. We can preserve the center only by moving back a bit to the left.

In a community conversation sponsored by the YWCA yesterday, a couple of people claimed that “Far Left” violence was just as bad as the Far Right’s. But this is a baseless claim. We may have seen people upset with an epidemic of racist police murders marching in the street last May, along with some property damage — but you’d have to go back to the days of the Weather Underground to match the violence of today’s Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, KKK, neo-Nazis, militias, QAnon conspiracy nuts, and lone wolf terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

Another remark made yesterday by a good friend of mine with whom I have disagreed on this topic for many years is that the Left is equally guilty of anti-semitism.

Sorry, friend. This accusation has only empty calories if you lump in critics of Israeli domestic and foreign policy with those who actually shoot up synagogues or spread conspiracies of Jewish “cosmopolitans” trying to take over the world.

More specifically, the accusation of “Left anti-semitism” targets people with legitimate criticisms. Is it anti-semitic to point out that Palestinians have no legal protections and have lived under martial law since 1948? Is it anti-semitic to point out that, under international law, Israel is obligated to provide for Palestinians but has not even made COVID-19 vaccines available to them? Is it anti-semitic to prefer the non-violent Boycott and Divestment (BDS) campaign to an armed intifada?

Precisely because BDS has touched a moral nerve and has been so successful, its supporters are now in Israel’s crosshairs, and also in the crosshairs of a number of domestic groups which lobby in Israel’s interests. Worse, these lobbying efforts have convinced many Americans that opposing Zionism is precisely the same as hating Jews and this has given rise to legislation that punishes those who support BDS.

Long before Theodor Herzl wrote “der Judenstaat” Zionists dreamed of “returning” to the Israel from which Jews were sent into exile in the 2nd Century. 19th Century anti-semitism made their dream more vivid, and the Holocaust made the dream a necessity, as Jewish refugees were literally turned away at ports by many countries, including Britain and the United States.

But Herzl’s description of the Holy Land as a “land for people without land” was not exactly true, and if you read his pamphlet you note the variety of methods for making those already living there leave in favor of the newcomers. Interestingly, Herzl did not envision Israel as a democracy but as a regency. And Herzl himself proposed Uganda as one possibility for settlement at a Zionist Congress. Zionists also considered buying a portion of Argentina. The Balfour Declaration essentially gave Britain’s post-war colony to Jewish settlers. As in Herzl’s pamphlet, settlement was originally handled by a corporation that would buy land. And for a short while, Israel did purchase land. But then Israel simply took land from the Palestinians.

The history of Israel and Palestine is complicated, but one thing is indisputable. Zionism is a colonial settler enterprise. Stripped down to its basic function, it was designed to send settlers to a land with indigenous people and take land and resources from them. Whatever you think of biblical justifications for taking land, or the fact that two millenia before Jews had lived there, Zionism was a project precisely like the Puritans arriving in Massachusetts with the London Company and taking what the Wampanoag owned — including their lives.

No one expressed this dark side of Zionism more clearly, more unapologetically, than Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Russian admirer of Benito Mussolini, who is credited with creating “revisionist Zionism” and writing “The Iron Wall” — in which he wrote:

It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel.”

We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say “non” and withdraw from Zionism.

Jabotinsky understood well what Israel was doing was replacing Arabs with Jews, committing cultural and political, if not physical, genocide. Jabotinsky’s program was to erect an “Iron Wall” — not a literal wall like Trump’s but a “no concessions to indigenous people” policy. This is the policy that the Likud Party has followed since its inception. It is no coincidence that Binyamin Netanyahu’s father was Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s secretary.

The Neo-fascist revisionist Zionists of yesterday were more honest than their American defenders today who ignore the ongoing oppression, land theft, and human rights abuses. Jabotinsky actually called the Palestinians by their name in contrast to Golda Meir — often associated with a more “liberal” pre-Likud Israel — who denied Palestinian peoplehood.

Today, Liberals continue bending over backward to defend Israel’s abuses and to demonize its critics. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Israel’s definition of anti-semitism for the U.S. State Department, and it includes the murder of Jews in synagogues but also numerous forms of criticism of Israel. The author of this definition was Natan Sharansky, Israel’s minister for Diaspora affairs and Jerusalem. Imagine not being able to criticize the House of Saud or the Vatican. Imagine not being able to “single out” Britain because it is the only nation whose official church is the Anglican Church.

Israel’s defenders include not only pro-settler elements of the Republican Party like former ambassador David Friedman or the late Sheldon Adelson. But reflexive defenders also include American liberals who long ago decided that having white nationalist, Christian fundamentalist control of the goverment did not add up to a democracy — but, somehow, Jewish supremacy and extreme racism toward Arabs does. This is a country where half of Israelis believe in expelling Arabs and where one out of four prefer Jewish law to democracy.

To the credit of many Israelis — including a sizeable diaspora of those who have left, and for a large segment of American Jews — nationalism of any kind is a scourge.

If you think these are fringe observations, check out the human rights reports of B’Tselem, take a look at Israel’s liberal newspaper Haaretz, visit +972, a collective of Jewish and Palestinian writers, or get on the Jewish Voice for Peace mailing list. And inform yourself about the BDS movement.

Nationalism — white, Christian, Hindu, Polish, Hungarian, German, or Jewish — is fundamentally undemocratic, divisive, and toxic.

Honestly, I don’t know why I even have to write these words.

An empty denunciation of white supremacist violence

On January 6th Bristol County Sheriff and Massachusetts Trump campaign Chair Thomas M. Hodgson condemned in the weakest terms possible the violence of fellow Trump supporters storming the Capitol building, planting bombs, preparing to lynch both legislators and the Vice President, and attempting to prevent certification of Electoral College votes. Hodgson tweeted, “What happened at the United States Capitol today was outrageous and completely unacceptable. It is never acceptable or appropriate for anyone to resort to violence and malicious destruction to express grievances.”

Hodgson, a supporter of United Cape Patriots, a Massachusetts group that descended on the Capitol on January 6th, echoed the rioters’ false claim that the vote had been stolen: “The fastest way to end the ongoing debate over elections issues and the deep divide in our country is to have an audit prior to Jan. 20 so both Democrats and Republicans can be assured they can continue to have faith in our elections.” The problem is, post-election vote audits are not a Constitutionally-permitted alternative to counting Electoral College votes that the states have already certified.

The January 6th siege, which claimed the life of at least one police officer, was barely two months from the date Hodgson praised Trump for his “commitment to uphold the rule of law and support law enforcement in our mission to keep our families, neighborhoods and nation safe.”

Hodgson hypocritically claimed right before the election that Trump’s enemies were “attempting a ‘coup’ based on their ‘Russian Hoax’, in an attempt to deny the American people the legitimate outcome based on our nation’s electoral process.” Hodgson’s non-condemnation of the protesters and complete dismissal of the President’s responsibility for inflaming them, tell us a lot about his concern for the electoral process, the rule of law, or even Hodgson’s support of law enforcement. There is none.

The Bristol County Sheriff knows full well that marauding rioters at the Capitol had been enraged by Trump’s non-stop lies that the presidential election was fraudulently stolen from him, an assertion that Hodgson has not sufficiently distanced himself from.

If Hodgson is truly sad at “disorderly and violent behavior” then let him acknowledge the Massachusetts Attorney General’s report that he, himself, was largely responsible for an unjustified attack on detainees in his own jail. Hodgson, who has repeatedly been found by both state and federal judges to have violated the civil rights of his prisoners, personally attacked and unleashed dogs on non-resisting ICE detainees on May 1st, 2020. Hodgson would not consent to be interviewed by the AG, and the ACLU has had to sue for tapes of the riot that Hodgson provoked, which Hodgson will not release.

It seems that Hodgson shares a lot of political DNA with the Capitol rioters. And Hodgson’s well-established neo-Confederate and his white supremacist connections make his perfunctory condemnations of white supremacist and white militia violence meaningless.

If Tom Hodgson truly wants “an election audit before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration” — an audit whose only goal is erasing over 60 state court rulings rejecting challenges to their election outcomes — he ought to welcome audits of his own jail. But Hodgson crudely dismissed the Attorney General’s report: “It’s about halfway down the sewer pipe,” Hodgson said. “That’s about how much value I put into the attorney general’s recommendations that are politically motivated.”

The validity of the presidential election was certified in fifty states, upheld by a multitude of court decisions, and then supported by Republican and Democratic officials who adhered to their oaths of office. But that’s not good enough for Hodgson, who only a day after the coup attempt said, “I do believe that there’s likely fraud, based on what I’ve seen so far, it appears that [fraud] is very likely.”

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Capitol insurrectionists were fed false and fantastical conspiracy theories that undermined any possibility of accepting a valid election outcome. They assembled, marched and viciously attacked the Capitol because of those lies.

Lies that Hodgson continues to spread.

Thoughts on my first American coup

In my almost 70 years on this planet, this is my first American coup. And I had been thinking that 2020 was the interesting year. I was certainly wrong.

I was going to write about the similarities between last Wednesday’s coup attempt and its precedents in the Munich coup of 1923 or Mussolini’s March on Rome in October 1922. I though I might mention that the Mar-a-Lago Führer had long been fascinated by his fascist forebears, even keeping a copy of Hitler’s collected speeches in his nightstand, a fact confirmed by multiple sources including Trump himself.

It occurred to me I should also mention the differences between these coups — that, unlike Trump’s 2021 attempt, the Munich police actually fought the 3,000 Bierkeller fascists, killing a number of them. Instead, it was reported today that off-duty police from around the country may have participated in Trump’s attempt to derail the certification of Electoral College votes and physically intimidate lawmakers.

Or that Capitol police, some who appeared in selfies with the mob, appear to have actually invited the insurrection into chambers, some armed, some carrying plastic ties to take lawmakers hostage, some erecting gallows, fixin’ to lynch the Vice President and House and Senate leaders. Videos show police actually opening the doors. And now we read that the deployment of Maryland National Guard troops may have been slow-walked by Trump loyalists in the Pentagon. There are a lot of questions to be answered in the investigations I hope are coming.

Unlike Mussolini, who triumphantly entered Rome with his fellow blackshirts, Trump retreated back to his bunker for another cheeseburger, despite promising the mob he would be marching with them. Unfortunately, America’s First Fascist didn’t even show the courtesy of committing suicide in his bunker like the man whose speeches he loves so much.

But who can say today that they were really suprised by this coup — coming from a man whose administration built concentration camps for children, proposed putting DACA recipients in boxcars and shipping them out of the country, never once distancing himself from his white supremacist base and in fact speaking for them? Who could say they were truly suprised at any of this — from a man who managed to corrupt everyone around him and never once encountered anything but impunity for even the most treasonous actions?

Yet what upsets me the most are the reactions the coup attempt has provoked.

Even after four years of the most egregious corruption and authoritarianism, the mainstream press still finds it difficult to pronounce Trump’s attempt to prevent the counting of Electoral College votes a failed coup. Instead, this retrospectively ham-handed effort is variously described as an insurrection or a riot — as if it were a fraternity party or a Superbowl celebration that got out of hand.

It was, of course, no such thing.

I had planned to mention that the all-too-frequently published photo of the Norseman with his spear provided an undeserved comic veneer to what was actually a deadly coup that cost the life of six people, including two Capitol police officers. Anyone who watches the videos now surfacing understands that many of the participants thought they were part of a “revolution” liberating Congress, just as they had been instructed to “liberate” state capitals by the President.

Despite all this, Republicans have refused to invoke the 25th Amendment and we now hear from Jim Clyburn that Democrats will likely conduct an impeachment inquiry 100 days into the Biden administration. Some voices gravely warn us that pursuing justice at all will only divide the country.

In the face of all this bending-over-backwards to avoid prosecuting white supremacists and rich white guys, the only concrete response to Trump’s coup has been for three social network giants to de platform Parler, the far right version of Twitter, and to ban Trump himself from Facebook and Twitter. There is a long precedent for this. Facebook, Google, and Twitter have been cancelling accounts of terrorists since 9/11, and telecom giants have on occasion blocked entire websites like Wikileaks. Social networks — precisely like members of the Trump administration now writing their resignation letters — simply didn’t care about lies, white supremacy or the threats of violence they suborned until they were forced to care.

But punishing one undemocratic action with another is not going to fix what’s wrong with American democracy.

Trump’s calls to invade the Capitol and disrupt the Electoral College ought to have had immediate consequences. But those who swore to uphold the Constitution violated those oaths. A bunch of pitchfork-wielding white supremacists — even when calling for lynching — apparently did not alarm authorities as much as BLM’s calls for police reform this Spring. Support for overturning the Electoral College vote from Republican legislators like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz should also have set off alarm bells. Well-telegraphed plans to disrupt the election should have resulted in immediate investigations and extra protection for Congress members. Instead, impunity for legislators driving and supporting the coup and violating free speech for everyone else are the only solutions we can come up with.

If overturning the results of a democratic election has no consequences, if coup attempts are trivialized and any thought of prosecuting ringleaders is not pursued, then autocracy will have won.

There have to be consequences for last Wednesday’s coup attempt. People must serve some serious time in prison for it, including the President, several Senators and a number of Congressmen, and thousands of white supremacists and conspiracy nuts who broke into Congress and attempted to crush police to death. Some of these spineless Congressmen are now blaming their actions on their own constituents. Michigan Republican Representative Peter Meijer claimed that many Republicans went along with the President’s attempt to subvert the election because their constituents had threatened them.

But if none of these instigators, ringleaders, or the organizations responsible for ground operations are held accountable, then let’s simply open the nation’s prisons — which contain tens of thousands serving life sentences for trivial drug and property offenses. Seriously, just let them go. If there are no consequences for ringleaders of a large-scale coup to overturn an elected government-in-waiting, then why should there be any consequences for a guy who arrested with a little too much weed on him?

The American Constitution has made many of the anti-democratic maneuvers we’ve seen in the last four years possible, granting excessive power to the Executive, undermining fair elections that everyone must have faith in — and these are all worries of both Liberals and Conservatives. It’s something we should all agree on.

If we really want to fix our democracy, we must start by rewriting the awful rule book that governs its operation.