Cauldron of Crazy

If you really want to understand why America is now viewed by the rest of the planet as a pariah – its citizens denied the right to travel the world because of the incompetence of its government and toxicity of its culture – please watch this:

IMG_0407 from Andrew Colton on Vimeo.

Somehow, when the ingredients for this cauldron of crazy are fed to this woman by Fox, it is called journalism and sponsored by major companies such as Office Depot, Expedia, Bayer, ADT, Ford, and the like. But when regurgitated on social media and in forums such as the one in the video (Palm Beach County Commission), it is dismissed as fringe lunacy, for which the GOP and its media arm take no responsibility.

Although Trumpism is what precipitated the eruption of this toxic craziness into the core of our national life, it will not disappear with Trump’s presidency.

Although Disney, Papa Johns, and T-Mobil have withdrawn their advertising from Tucker Carlson, many other major companies remain as sponsors of Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham. It’s one thing to acquiesce to the free speech rights of these toxic voices, it’s quite another to fund them by the purchase of products and services from their advertisers.

If your mother were killed by the COVID resurgence in a place where the shut down was ended prematurely and masks were not required, would you patronize a company that sponsored those that spewed the nonsense that killed her? And under what moral code is it ok for the rest of us, who were lucky enough not to have loved ones killed by COVID, to patronize those same companies? Effective immediately, I am boycotting any company that still advertises on Fox.

I still have the concept of “negligent homicide” rattling around my brain from law school days:  the killing of another person through gross negligence, i.e., when a person’s death is caused by conduct that grossly deviates from “ordinary care.” That in turn often depends on whether the consequence of the negligent conduct was reasonably foreseeable (for example, the way it is foreseeable that you risk hurting or killing someone if you drive while intoxicated).  Every morning I read ample testimony that the relevant state and federal governments knew what was required to protect the people and chose not to do it (in many cases not merely due to negligence or “wishful thinking,” but for political reasons that render the conduct morally repugnant). Looking around at the current crisis in Texas, Peter Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, observed: “All of this was predicted and is predictable.”

Nightmare

The principal lesson of the COVID pandemic is one of preparedness.   We knew that a pandemic would happen, how it would happen, and exactly what we needed to do to be prepared.  Our failure to do so resulted from the usual stew of human frailties: denial, wishful thinking, avarice and failure of leadership.

We now face another potentially devastating threat, which we must not again ignore until it is too late.  In 2016 Trump refused to say that he would accept the election results if he lost.  2020 will be no different.  Whenever he fails or loses, it is because the system is “rigged” against him.   And he is now, almost daily, laying the groundwork to contest this November’s results.  It centers around a groundless but powerful meme:  voting by mail produces massive fraud.   All experts agree it is untrue.  No matter.  With the narrative pushed relentlessly out to the base by Fox News, 76% of Republicans now say in polls that voting by mail leads to fraud. 

So what are we doing now to prepare for the risk that the 2020 election will result in chaos, violence, and even the end of America’s 223-year record of peaceful transfers of power?  With apologies for ruining your day, here is the nightmare scenario:

Assuming that election night returns show Trump losing, he angrily rejects this result, asserts (with no basis) massive fraud, claiming the margin of difference is due to millions of illegal immigrants and a democrat conspiracy revolving around absentee and mail-in ballots.  He refuses to concede and launches a blizzard of litigation.   With no wiser heads in the White House to stop him, in the next 24 hours, his tweets awaken every flavor of far right paranoia:  if the democrats are permitted to steal the election they will take your guns, ban your religion, end your freedom, and preside over a chaotic collapse of law and order.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.   Trump’s base takes to the streets, invades state houses, and threatens judges.   They are met by massive protests in opposition.  The streets erupt in violent chaos.  Trump militarizes the response, telling the country that only he can preserve law and order. 

Although many judges quickly resolve their cases, scores of red state judges require recounts, extend voting, and order other remedies that delay the ability of state officials to certify the results.  On December 14, when electors meet in each state, scores of litigations remain unresolved and some elector meetings are enjoined from proceeding.  In some swing states won by Biden, such as Michigan, a hyper-partisan GOP legislature simply “finds” that fraud has occurred, throws out the results from contested urban and minority precincts, and votes to certify the electors pledged to Trump.  On January 6, when the elector results are due in the Senate, enough state certifications are absent or contested to deny Biden 270 electoral votes.   The constitution gives Congress the power to count electoral votes and determine the result.  Outraged, the Democrat-controlled House determines that Biden has won.  The Senate, still controlled by the GOP, either determines that Trump is the winner or votes to delay deciding.   

The President’s term expires at noon on January 20 and, pursuant to the Presidential Succession Act, if the office becomes vacant and a new president has not been inaugurated, the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.  

As of January 19, the Supreme Court has issued a series of contradictory and inconclusive 5-4 rulings.  Other cases have yet to reach the Supreme Court.  Having allowed the violence to peak to levels that have terrified ordinary citizens, Trump has declared martial law, pledging to restore law and order.  The move has widespread support. 

That night, the President addresses the nation, this time “revealing” a vast conspiracy by the “deep state,” aided by the Chinese and other hostile governments, to subvert the constitution and deny him the office to which he was elected.   Attorney General Barr, standing at his side, is “gravely concerned” and has launched a full investigation.   Trump says he has taken an oath to defend the constitution and this is what he will do.  He notes that if all the still-contested state elector certifications break his way, he will have won the electoral vote.   Let the process work, he argues.   Moreover, it is a time of national crisis, and he will not abandon the nation to chaos and violence.    All eight members of the Joint Chiefs were ordered to stand behind him when giving this address.   Two agreed and stood at his side.  The other six refused and were fired.

The next day, in a ceremony on the steps of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is sworn in by Justice Ginsburg as acting president pursuant to the 1947 Presidential Succession Act.    Trump tweets from the White House that this is an act of treason and orders the Attorney General to arrest both women. 

Outlandish?  Unthinkable?  My argument is not that this grim scenario will happen, only that it is a real risk.  

The best way to prevent it?  That’s simple: an overwhelming popular vote for Biden, and democratic control of both houses of Congress.   It is the closeness of the popular vote margin that would provide the necessary cover for those inclined to enable Trump.  Without it, they won’t dare.   And if both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposition party starting January 3, then many legal and procedural avenues will be denied to the Trumpists. Many of us have indulged in the narrative that our votes mean nothing in a presidential election, the result being determined by a handful of swing voters in the swing states. But this time around, that is manifestly untrue. Every vote really does count.

"Marines don't forget"

The pundits tell us that nothing will change hearts and minds among 2016 Trump voters.   I wonder whether revelations of his disrespect for our armed forces and estrangement from “his” initial team of generals might finally cause some eyes to be opened.

Until I read the insider accounts provided to The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig and reported in their book, A Very Stable Genius, I wasn’t able to connect the dots that paint a picture of a deteriorating relationship with the military, one of the key conservative/GOP constituencies.

You may have heard previously about what happened on July 20, 2017, but the Rucker/Leonnig book contains a more detailed, and deeply sourced, account.   In an attempt to educate the President about the basics of U.S. military history (more on that later) and the current foundations of our national security, the Joint Chiefs, flag officers and others assembled in “The Tank,” one of the most historic rooms at the Pentagon, almost sacred to those in service.   Hating any implication that he didn’t know more than everyone else in the room, impatient and bored, Trump exploded in a red-face rant:  “I wouldn’t go to war with you people.  You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”  “You’re all losers,” he said, “You don’t know how to win anymore.”  Beneath portraits of American heroes, he railed against the forces under his command.  His complaint:  our military should charge for what they do and make money from the people we help, regardless of the fact that it’s in the U.S. national security interest: “We spend $7 trillion . .  Where is the fucking oil? . . . We should make them pay for our soldiers.  We should make money off of everything.”  So there you have it.   Bunker Hill, Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway, Marne, Normandy:  all about money.

The flag officers, seething, stared at their shoes, unable to confront their commander in chief.  Pence, as usual, was frozen.  Only Rex Tillerson spoke up: “No, that’s just wrong.  Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.  The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune.  That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”   It was immediately after that meeting, standing in the hall outside, that Tillerson called Trump “a fucking moron.” 

When Trump (“without a plan or any apparent thought,” per his own special envoy), subsequently tweeted our withdrawal from Syria based on a single phone call with Turkish President Erdogan, he humiliated General Mattis, who had just assured our partners we were in it for the long haul, abandoned our Kurdish allies without warning, and put US troop in grave danger.   Mattis finally had enough.   The Pentagon leadership considered this an assault on the soldiers’ code:  never abandon a fellow warrior on the battlefield.   Mattis’s letter of resignation was devastating, asserting in the strongest possible terms the dependence of U.S. national security on our system of alliances and the need to be “resolute and unambiguous” in our dealings with countries, like Russia and China, whose strategic interests are opposed to our own.    A young marine guarding the Pentagon entrance often used by Mattis reacted to the news: “Marines don’t forget.”

Trump’s problems with the military are woven from a fabric with many strands:   

·      The military does not like being used as a political prop.   The generals were appalled when, as part of his campaign for the midterm election, he illegally ordered the military to the southern border to combat the “invasion.”  Pentagon officials privately derided the deployment as a morale killer, a degradation of the professional ethos of the officer corps (which understands that it must stay out of politics), and an expensive waste of time and resources.   The real purpose of the whole thing became clear when the White House insisted that the military produce images or videos of troops confronting the “invasion” immediately, even before the troops had been deployed.  “I can’t give people pictures of something that’s not happening,” the Pentagon responded.  The Defense Department source explained, “The urgency wasn’t on the mission.  It was on getting the pictures.”

·      Trump often refers to “my generals” and “my military.”  Business Insider and other sources report that many inside the armed forces find this offensive.   "The US military belongs to the nation, not the president. We're not his," a former Army officer complained. 

·      The military jealously defends the prerogatives of its own system of military justice.  Trump, prompted by Fox, intervened in the case of Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL, and, among other interventions, reversed a Navy decision to oust Gallagher.  This led eventually to the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who said in his resignation letter:  “I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline.  I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took . . .”  General Kelly weighed in last week, saying “The idea that the commander in chief intervened there, in my opinion, was exactly the wrong thing to do,”

·      When Trump retaliated against Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman (together with his brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman) for testifying truthfully in response to a mandatory Congressional subpoena (and had him escorted from the White House), I suspected the Army would not be pleased.  Given the constraints on active duty officers, it was retired John Kelley who had to defend his fellow officer: “He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave.”  

·      It’s one thing to fib in the course of politics.  It’s another to stand in front of the men and women under your command and lie to them.  During a speech to the troops during his visit to Iraq, Trump said that they had not received a raise in more than ten years, until “he” recently gave them a 10% raise.  In fact, they had received raises every year for decades, and the one Trump authorized was 2.6%, not 10%.   Did he think the soldiers didn’t know their own salaries?  You think this is fake news?  It was the Military Times (not the New York Times) that ran an article detailing each of the lies and misleading statements in Trump’s speech.

·      Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice hold officers to a high standard, and prohibits “conduct unbecoming,” which includes “acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty.”  Examples of violations under this statute include cheating, knowingly making a false official statement, and using insulting or defamatory language to an officer.   From day one of the Trump presidency, it was a galling hypocrisy that our men and women in uniform had to answer to a man who almost daily indulged in conduct that would have gotten any of them discharged.

·      When Trump, without reason other than to penalize him for criticism, revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, former Navy admiral William “Bull Frog” McRaven, a commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command who oversaw the 2011 raid that killed bin Laden, couldn’t take it anymore.  He wrote a public letter to Trump, noting that few Americans had done more to protect America than John Brennan:  “Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs . . . A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself . . .  Through your actions you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worse of all, divided us as a nation.  If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken.”  Up and down our military and intelligence ranks, the reaction to Trump’s attack on Brennan were similar to this one from a career officer:  “The disdain he shows for our country’s foundation and its principles.  The disregard he has for right and wrong.  Your fist clenches.  Your teeth grate.  The hair goes up on the back of your neck.  I have to remind myself I said an oath to a document in the National Archives.  I swore to the Constitution.  I didn’t swear an oath to this jackass.”  

Could the generals finally convince some Trump loyalists to rethink their support?  Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that he found Trump to be both immoral and dishonest. Mattis is sticking to his belief that retired generals should not speak out against a sitting President, but he’s dropping hints right and left about what he really thinks (and his resignation letter itself was searing in its appraisal of Trump’s policy).   And now Kelley – not just a retired Marine four-star general, but someone who, as Chief of Staff, worked with Trump more closely than anyone else – has decided to speak up.  

Trump’s view of the U.S. military as nothing more than mercenaries deployed to advance U.S. commercial interests is perhaps inevitable when you consider his complete ignorance of our military’s proud history.  On a boat en route to visit the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Trump pulled his chief of staff aside: “Hey, John, what’s this all about?  What’s this a tour of?” Trump had heard the phrase “Pearl Harbor,” but didn’t know what it was about or why it was important.   Kelly was stunned.  After plowing through 400 pages of insider accounts of the man, somehow the reader finds it hard to be surprised, even by this. 

Let’s hope that in November the Marines, and other men and women in uniform, don’t forget.

Overheard in the Gym

Two months prior to the election, in Schoolyard Lessons, I imagined the impact of a Trump presidency on children, who would be particularly susceptible to the ubiquitous media presence of a mendacious, vulgar, ignorant, bullying braggart in a position of respect, authority and celebrity.

But now it’s clear that the amplification and celebration of Trump’s appalling speech and behavior is warping the values and character of Americans of all ages.    I heard the following dialogue between two young men working out in a neighborhood gym on the West coast of Florida:

“You know, bro, you don’t make it in the world by being nice.”

“What’ya mean?”

“You gotta go after what you want and fuck everyone else.   You gotta say what you need to say; doesn’t matter whether it’s true.  You gotta do what it takes to win.   I mean, that’s Trump.  And look at him, he’s got it all.   He sees p**** he likes, he takes it.  Need to cheat and lie to make money, no problem.  He says fuck the IRS, only losers pay taxes.”

“Yea.  I guess.”

Both these young men were wearing crucifixes on chains around their necks. 

American is a land of contradictions.  We are the first nation in the history of the world to produce people who are simultaneously obese and malnourished.  Perhaps we also will be the first to host a majority who display the external appearances of Christianity, but whose inner characters are bereft of the Christian virtues.  This would be a distinctly odd result, as Christianity in particular puts a premium on works, not words, as the way to bear witness to the message of Christ.

Yet most Republicans, conservatives, and evangelicals have done, as Trump would say, a “deal.”   In return for political power and a handful of political objectives, they embrace an amoral monster and employ his sinful toolkit of deception, hate, ignorance, and prejudice.  The ends, they explain, justify the means.

There is no faith tradition nor secular ethic in which the ends justify the means.  When this becomes generally accepted in a society, no common moral fabric is possible.   Moreover, the normalization of immoral means can be reversed only by a cataclysmic event, such as war, or the passage of many generations.

Culture warriors on the right used to worry, with some justification, about the corrosive effect of profanity and violence in popular culture.  Where are they now?  Americans of all ages are bombarded daily ­– from the highest office in the land – with casual mendacity, intemperance, vindictive bullying, obsessive braggadocio, and a world view in which all human relations are transactional and devoid of moral content.  Even worse, this conduct is celebrated by the influencers and opinion-makers who dominate half of the country.  

Politics is transient.  Culture endures.  Re-read the conversation between the young men in the gym.  If this is the America you would build for your children and grandchildren, then vote again for Trump.

Give me your Norwegians

America before Trump:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Emma Lazarus, from The New Colossus [poem appearing on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty]

America after Trump:

“Why do we want these people from all these shithole countries here? We should have more people from places like Norway.”

D.J. Trump, in a meeting about protecting migrants from Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, January 11, 2018

Give me your white, your wealthy,

Your greedy masses yearning for more stuff,

Keep the wretched refuse, please

Send me no black, brown, Muslim or Jew

Norwegians! For you I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Poem that could replace Emma Lazarus if Trump is reelected

Christmas Eve In Norfolk

Your correspondent had the good fortune to attend a Christmas eve service in the tiny Church of St. Mary and All Saints, in the village of Newton-by-Castle Acre, Norfolk, England.  The structure has been in continuous use since the late 10th or early 11th century.  There is nothing like an ancient church to remind us of the long arc of human civilization.

The most moving moment during the service came when the vicar entreated the congregation to join him in a simple prayer:  that those who govern us may be granted “humility and wisdom.”

Back home my countrymen are struggling once again with the question of what qualities we seek in our leader.   But the answer, I realized, is simple.  Humility and wisdom.   Everything else is secondary. 

In 2016, 80% of self-identified evangelical and conservative Christians are reported to have voted for one of the least humble and least wise public figures of our era.   Growing up I was taught that the spirit of Christmas eve is peace, and the spirit of Christmas is love.  And what message did the champion of American Christians choose for Christmas eve:  a rant claiming that Nancy Pelosi “hates the Republican Party . . . She hates all of the people who voted for me and the Republican Party . . ..”  A message of hate for a day of love.

At Christmas everyone, regardless of religious tradition or belief, can celebrate the coming of a great light into the darkness.   This is the light of the ethical teaching of Christ and many others:  to love your neighbor as yourself.  It is the light of charity, brotherhood, generosity, tolerance and forgiveness. 

Although as an atheist I don’t direct my prayers to any particular entity, my Christmas prayer is that the spirit of Christmas drives hate and anger from the hearts of my countrymen, and that they heed the lesson learned over a thousand years by the tiny congregation of St. Mary and All Saints:  when their rulers were humble and wise, the villagers gathered on Christmas eve in peace and prosperity; when the hearts of their leaders were filled with hate, greed, arrogance and anger, their Christmas eve prayers were for relief from the resulting war, tyranny, oppression and poverty.

"A Warning" by Anonymous and the Coming Constitutional Crisis

In any other time or place, A Warning, the book by an anonymous “Senior Administration Official,” would have been the focus of sustained attention, both in the media and around the water cooler.  After all, the author—a senior Republican who voted for Trump and joined his administration—makes the case, with a plethora of insider detail, that Trump has been a “catastrophe” for the country.   But I have yet to meet another person who has read it.   Most reviewers, unpersuaded by the author’s justifications for his anonymity, huffed that the book contained few revelations.

Perhaps, but each time an insider pulls back the curtain on what is actually happening in the White House, it adds to the depth and clarity of the picture.  The author is truly terrified by the prospect of Trump’s re-election.  He argues that, “freed from the threat of defeat, this president will feel emboldened to double down on his worst impulses.”   And most of those impulses are, in the words of his aides, “bat-shit crazy.”  He reveals that Trump’s ideas included ordering the military to shoot refugees trying to cross the border, and declaring the rest to be terrorists and shipping them off the Guantanamo.  

He paints a picture of decision making bereft of the usual deliberative process.   When a bold official dared to bring a written analysis into the Oval, Trump shouted, “What the fuck is this?  These are just words.  A bunch of words.  It doesn’t mean anything.”  A national security official complained to the author, “He is the most distracted person I’ve ever met.  He has no fucking clue what we are talking about.”   The author calls his intellectual laziness “astounding.”  The author reports that Trump is obsessed with tariffs because he thinks foreigners can be made to pay us to buy their goods.  “His convoluted view of economics is beyond repair.”  The consensus of a group of cabinet secretaries and other officials was that “About a third of the things the president wants us to do are flat-out stupid.  Another third would be impossible to implement and wouldn’t even solve the problem.  And a third of them would be flat-out illegal.”  

One of the occasions where the Trump’s incapacities cannot be hidden are in calls with foreign leaders:  “Those privy to the content of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders were red-faced with embarrassment.  To us, he came off like a complete amateur, using important calls to brag about himself and make awkward comments.  U.S. allies felt the same way.  His strange proclamations and irascibility shocked them.”  He explains that the summaries of these calls were locked down in part “because the content was so routinely and so remarkably embarrassing.”

Trump’s bizarre delusions regarding foreign policy scare those around him.  On Russia, for example:  “We need a comprehensive strategy to counter the Russians, not court them.  But Trump is living on another planet, one where he and Putin are companions and where Russia wants to help America be successful.”   The state of affairs is terrifying:

“Our enemies and adversaries recognize the president is a simplistic pushover.  They are unmoved by his bellicose Twitter threat because they know he can be played.  President Trump is easily swayed by their rhetoric.  We can all see it.  He is visibly moved by flattery.  He folds in negotiations, and he is willing to give up the farm for something that merely looks like a good deal, whether it is or not.  They believe he is weak, and they take advantage of him.  When they cannot, they simply ignore him.”

He describes the United States under Trump having suffered a “reputational free fall.”

Trump’s casual disregard for the truth is nothing new.   Anonymous’s perspective is interesting:  “The President has been called a pathological liar.  I used to cringe when I heard people say that just to score political points, and I thought it was unfair.  Now I know it’s true.  He spreads lies he hears.  He makes up new lies to spread.  He lies to our faces.  He asks people around him to lie. . . . He enjoys watching people go out and compromise their integrity in order to serve him.”

Perhaps the most important revelations in A Warning involve Trump’s indifference to legality and constitutional limits on his powers.  The President demands to be told that the law will let him do what he wants.  The author writes, “We can tell when Trump is preparing to ask his lawyers to do something unethical or foolish because that’s when he starts scanning the room for note takers.”   He explains Trump’s MO regarding legality:  “The president won’t let the cautiousness of government lawyers stop him from doing what he wants.  If he really can’t get the answers he demands, he seeks outside counsel, scouring the legal community for its unseemly members.”  If a judge rules against him it’s “a disgrace” and he or she becomes a “so-called judge.”   In a morning rant, Trump instructed his aides:  “Let’s get rid of the fucking judges.  There shouldn’t be any at all, really.”  He meant it and ordered that legislation be sent to the Hill (like so many of such impulsive orders, it was ignored).  

He often demands that his staff ignore separation of powers and the constitution:   “Increasingly, Trump has decided to ignore Congress altogether.  He’s told advisors to do the same, goading them to flagrantly defy congressional restrictions . . . ‘Don’t worry about Congress,’ the president said [to one aide], ‘Just do what you need to do.’’’  The aide explained that was just not possible, as Congressional authorization was required.  “No, no.  It doesn’t matter.  You have my permission to do whatever you need to do, okay?  Just forget about them.”  In Trump’s monarchical view, his “permission” and pardon power are sufficient to render any proposed action legal.

Predictably, Trump’s fascination with the power of the pardon is “almost mystical.”    “He has told officials that if they take illegal actions on his behalf, he will pardon them.”  An example was his order to the wall builders to ignore environmental regulations and eminent domain procedures and press ahead.  “He’ll have their backs, pardon in hand, if they got into legal trouble.”

The author suggests that Ukraine is hardly the only instance where the president has conflated national and personal objectives: “He has always acted impulsively to serve his interests over those of the United States.”  He cites the President’s insistence on cutting off federal aid to California after the devastating wild fires, because he believes that the state “stole” electoral votes from him by allowing “illegal” voters to cast ballots.  Besides, he “hates” California.  Writes Anonymous, “We learned that, given enough time and space, Donald J. Trump will seek to abuse any power he is given.  This is a fact of life we’ve been taught inside his administration through repeated example.  No external force can ameliorate his attraction to wrongdoing.  His presidency is continually jeopardized by it, and so are American’s institutions.”

The Constitutional Crisis

 We are already in the midst of a constitutional crisis and it can only get worse.   The president has called the impeachment process a “hoax” and a “coup” and vowed to obstruct it at every turn.  Impeachment is a constitutional process.  As long as the House and Senate follow the rules, it is neither a hoax nor a coup, no more than a whistleblower protected by federal law should be arrested for “treason.”  But all this gives us a clear picture of what to expect when it is time for Trump to leave office, whether upon loss of the election or impeachment.  He will not hesitate to set the country on fire to preserve his vanity.

The depressing observation of Anonymous:  “He will not exit quietly—or easily.  It is why at many turns he suggests ‘coups’ are afoot and a ‘civil war’ is in the offing.  He is already seeding the narrative for his followers­­—a narrative that could end tragically.”  Remember that Trump in 2016 became the first candidate in the history of the republic to refuse to say that he would honor the results of the election if he lost.  And don’t forget that Michael Cohen warned us that “there will never be a peaceful transition of power” should Trump fail in his reelection bid.

So what could happen if Trump loses in 2020?  Trump would rally his base to mass protest, civil disobedience, and violence.  He is virtually certain to launch a blizzard of lawsuits contesting the results.  Individual electors in the Electoral College could honor Trump’s call to withhold, change, or delay their votes.   States where the GOP controls both the legislature and governorship might claim fraud and substitute the legislature as the body choosing that state’s electors.  The joint session of Congress called to receive the electoral votes could also delay or withhold its certification based on Trump’s complaints. 

Trump would remain Commander-in-Chief until noon on January 20, 2021, and the military could be expected to follow his orders up to that time.   What happens after noon if Trump is still contesting the election is opaque.   I believe that the central military command authorities (and most law enforcement) would follow the lead of Congress and the Courts and respect their proud traditions of professional and apolitical service. Moreover, Trump’s indiscipline and incompetence have horrified the Generals (who also rankle at being called “his” Generals, and resent his attempts to lure them into compromising partisan activities).

When writing Christian Nation, I struggled to create credible scenarios for the transition from authoritarian populism to secession and civil war.   In that particular dystopian vision, the U.S. military divided along partisan and regional lines, based on the fact that by 2013 certain units had already skewed heavily toward the religious right.  In a 2018 Military Times poll, 77.2% said the military now was significantly or somewhat more polarized along political lines.

On balance I believe that in the event of Trump’s refusal to accept either impeachment or the election results, the majority of our troops would obey the central command structure.   But there is troubling new evidence of the extent to which Trump’s irrationally faithful “base” now includes military personnel.   Consider this recent poll from The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted on behalf of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute: nearly half of armed services households questioned, 46%, said they viewed Russia as an ally.  You read that correctly.  According to an executive summary accompanying the results, the pollsters found the positive views of Russia seemed to be “predominantly driven by Republicans who have responded to positive cues from President Trump about Russia.”  Military personnel, who ought to know better, are now nearly twice more likely than ordinary Americans to trust Trump and adopt his view that Russia is an ally, not an enemy.   If this many soldiers sign up for Trump’s manifestly absurd apologia for Vladimir Putin, will they be able to resist his inevitable (should he lose) claim that the election was “rigged”?

The durability of our democracy is based not only on the solid foundation of our written constitution, but on the unwritten political culture that has evolved over the history of the republic:  the independence and integrity of the judiciary, the independence and vigor of a free press, a citizenry educated in their civic responsibilities and trusting in our institutions, and a sense of national identity and unity that is stronger than partisan identity and division.   Each of these elements of our political culture had been weakened before 2016, and has been further undermined in some significant way by Trump.   But each will be required if our 232-year traditional of peaceful succession is to survive his foul character. 

"My great and unmatched wisdom"

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!)."

            The President of the United States, near midnight, October 7, 2019

This tweet illustrates in four short lines that Trump’s narcissism, fueled by three years of the presidency, has grown to galactic proportions.  It is now too vast to temper or control, and those inclined to try have been banished from the White House.  It is the only driver of American foreign affairs (we no longer have a foreign policy).

Trump no longer acknowledges the government he heads. We have only “I.”  Like Louis XIV (L'état, c'est moi), he conflates the country and the “stable genius.” He doesn’t speak for the government of the United States, he is the government of the United States.

His grandiose faith in his infallibility and monarchical sense of indispensability are both debilitating delusions which, when combined with a particularly malignant strain of pathological narcissism, cries out for invocation of the 25th Amendment.  

Before Trump, what would you have thought if anyone referred (without humor or irony) in a speech or written pronouncement to their own “great and unmatched wisdom”?  It’s one thing to think it, it’s another thing to say it.  If a corporate CEO made a public statement referring to his or her own “great and unmatched wisdom,” the Board of Directors would be convening over the weekend, engaging a psychiatrist and hiring a headhunter. 

And then there’s the bully, telling a NATO ally publicly that it most not cross a line defined as “anything that I [again “I”] . . . consider to be off limits,” and threatening to “totally destroy and obliterate” their economy.  This is not only illogical, impossible, unhinged, and illegal, but should mortify every person who loves our country.  And, by the way, the idea that he (again ”I”) has already destroyed the Turkish (or any other) economy provides the icing on a layer cake of delusion.

Note that none of this has anything to do with the substance of his change in policy toward the Kurds.  That was a mistake (ok, perhaps more than a mistake, given our moral obligations to our Kurdish allies).  But it should hardly be a surprise.  He doesn’t understand any of the complexities of the Middle East and acted by midnight tweet based on what the last person he talked to (Erdogan) said.  It’s fascinating that it was this unforced error that finally started to break down the wall of GOP solidarity.  I would invite the Republican Senators speaking out against the policy to reconsider the Tweet and the man behind it. Their former GOP Senate colleague Jeff Flake said: "I never thought I would live to see an American President speak this way, using language that can only be described as authoritarian.  Fellow Republicans, where is the line?"  And while they’re at it, those fellow Republicans might want to ponder Flake’s earlier advice: “Trust me when I say that you can go elsewhere for a job, but you cannot go elsewhere for a soul.”