Friday, September 4, 2020

RSN: FOCUS | Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are 'Losers' and 'Suckers'

 


 

Reader Supported News
04 September 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS | Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are 'Losers' and 'Suckers'
U.S. service members at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial in Belleau, France. (photo: Sgt. Warren Smith/U.S. Marine Corps)
Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic
Goldberg writes: "The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades."

hen President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.

Trump’s understanding of concepts such as patriotism, service, and sacrifice has interested me since he expressed contempt for the war record of the late Senator John McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

There was no precedent in American politics for the expression of this sort of contempt, but the performatively patriotic Trump did no damage to his candidacy by attacking McCain in this manner. Nor did he set his campaign back by attacking the parents of Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

Trump remained fixated on McCain, one of the few prominent Republicans to continue criticizing him after he won the nomination. When McCain died, in August 2018, Trump told his senior staff, according to three sources with direct knowledge of this event, “We’re not going to support that loser’s funeral,” and he became furious, according to witnesses, when he saw flags lowered to half-staff. “What the fuck are we doing that for? Guy was a fucking loser,” the president told aides. Trump was not invited to McCain’s funeral. (These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity. The White House did not return earlier calls for comment, but Alyssa Farah, a White House spokesperson, emailed me this statement shortly after this story was posted: “This report is false. President Trump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to them at every turn: delivering on his promise to give our troops a much needed pay raise, increasing military spending, signing critical veterans reforms, and supporting military spouses. This has no basis in fact.”)

Trump’s understanding of heroism has not evolved since he became president. According to sources with knowledge of the president’s views, he seems to genuinely not understand why Americans treat former prisoners of war with respect. Nor does he understand why pilots who are shot down in combat are honored by the military. On at least two occasions since becoming president, according to three sources with direct knowledge of his views, Trump referred to former President George H. W. Bush as a “loser” for being shot down by the Japanese as a Navy pilot in World War II. (Bush escaped capture, but eight other men shot down during the same mission were caught, tortured, and executed by Japanese soldiers.)

When lashing out at critics, Trump often reaches for illogical and corrosive insults, and members of the Bush family have publicly opposed him. But his cynicism about service and heroism extends even to the World War I dead buried outside Paris—people who were killed more than a quarter century before he was born. Trump finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible. (The president did not serve in the military; he received a medical deferment from the draft during the Vietnam War because of the alleged presence of bone spurs in his feet. In the 1990s, Trump said his efforts to avoid contracting sexually transmitted diseases constituted his “personal Vietnam.”)

On Memorial Day 2017, Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery, a short drive from the White House. He was accompanied on this visit by John Kelly, who was then the secretary of homeland security, and who would, a short time later, be named the White House chief of staff. The two men were set to visit Section 60, the 14-acre area of the cemetery that is the burial ground for those killed in America’s most recent wars. Kelly’s son Robert is buried in Section 60. A first lieutenant in the Marine Corps, Robert Kelly was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was 29. Trump was meant, on this visit, to join John Kelly in paying respects at his son’s grave, and to comfort the families of other fallen service members. But according to sources with knowledge of this visit, Trump, while standing by Robert Kelly’s grave, turned directly to his father and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” Kelly (who declined to comment for this story) initially believed, people close to him said, that Trump was making a ham-handed reference to the selflessness of America’s all-volunteer force. But later he came to realize that Trump simply does not understand non-transactional life choices.

“He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself,” one of Kelly’s friends, a retired four-star general, told me. “He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.” Kelly’s friend went on to say, “Trump can’t imagine anyone else’s pain. That’s why he would say this to the father of a fallen marine on Memorial Day in the cemetery where he’s buried.”

I’ve asked numerous general officers over the past year for their analysis of Trump’s seeming contempt for military service. They offer a number of explanations. Some of his cynicism is rooted in frustration, they say. Trump, unlike previous presidents, tends to believe that the military, like other departments of the federal government, is beholden only to him, and not the Constitution. Many senior officers have expressed worry about Trump’s understanding of the rules governing the use of the armed forces. This issue came to a head in early June, during demonstrations in Washington, D.C., in response to police killings of Black people. James Mattis, the retired Marine general and former secretary of defense, lambasted Trump at the time for ordering law-enforcement officers to forcibly clear protesters from Lafayette Square, and for using soldiers as props: “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Mattis wrote. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

Another explanation is more quotidian, and aligns with a broader understanding of Trump’s material-focused worldview. The president believes that nothing is worth doing without the promise of monetary payback, and that talented people who don’t pursue riches are “losers.” (According to eyewitnesses, after a White House briefing given by the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford, Trump turned to aides and said, “That guy is smart. Why did he join the military?”)

Yet another, related, explanation concerns what appears to be Trump’s pathological fear of appearing to look like a “sucker” himself. His capacious definition of sucker includes those who lose their lives in service to their country, as well as those who are taken prisoner, or are wounded in battle. “He has a lot of fear,” one officer with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s views said. “He doesn’t see the heroism in fighting.” Several observers told me that Trump is deeply anxious about dying or being disfigured, and this worry manifests itself as disgust for those who have suffered. Trump recently claimed that he has received the bodies of slain service members “many, many” times, but in fact he has traveled to Dover Air Force Base, the transfer point for the remains of fallen service members, only four times since becoming president. In another incident, Trump falsely claimed that he had called “virtually all” of the families of service members who had died during his term, then began rush-shipping condolence letters when families said the president was not telling the truth.

Trump has been, for the duration of his presidency, fixated on staging military parades, but only of a certain sort. In a 2018 White House planning meeting for such an event, Trump asked his staff not to include wounded veterans, on grounds that spectators would feel uncomfortable in the presence of amputees. “Nobody wants to see that,” he said.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation






POLITICO NIGHTLY: The old college try fails



 
POLITICO Nightly: Coronavirus Special Edition

BY MYAH WARD AND RENUKA RAYASAM

Nightly video player of interview with college journalists on coronavirus outbreaks on campus

BACK TO SCHOOL NIGHTMARE — I can’t say that I was entirely surprised when my alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, became the face of the disastrous reopening of American colleges. While school administrators touted their roadmap for bringing students back to class, others saw the warning signs. “I think this road leads to a disaster,” said one UNC history professor.

University workers have said that they weren’t given proper protective equipment. And there was no testing protocol for students, Anna Pogarcic, the editor-in-chief at The Daily Tar Heel, told me in a Zoom call with college journalists this week.

The local health department warned school administrators to delay — they didn’t. A week after parents dropped off their kids in Chapel Hill, they had to drive back and pick them up, as Covid clusters proliferated across campus.

“Once that first cluster was reported, after we hadn’t even been on campus for a full week, we all started kind of freaking out and wondering, like, 'how far is this gonna go?’” Pogarcic said.

More than 6 percent of the nearly 3,000 colleges and universities Davidson College is tracking chose to start the semester entirely online. At historically black schools that are members of the United Negro College Fund, that figure rises to 38 percent.

But other schools, like UNC, tried their hand at teaching primarily in person. At least 180 colleges and universities have had to adjust their plans, with 78 moving to remote classes.

In-person college reopening plans had one fatal flaw: They relied too heavily on students to police their own behavior.

Instead of concrete plans to deal with the inevitable virus spread, school officials shifted responsibility to students, ordering them not to gather. Universities were surprisingly unprepared to deal with young adults’ irresistible need to socialize, especially after an extended hiatus where they were largely locked at home with their parents.

And that is exactly what happened: from fraternity and sorority rush parties to innocent games of Monopoly.

“I think one of the things that’s really challenging in this pandemic is how difficult it is to predict what will happen because it is so dependent on our behavior,” said Gypsyamber D’Souza, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. “We have classroom risks, we have dining hall risks, there’s the risks in the dorms, transportation, then there’s the social settings.”

It’s been a jarring fall semester for college students across the country. A friend of mine who is set to graduate from UNC next May lives in an off-campus house with a group of other students (they signed their lease last fall, long before anyone had any inkling of Covid-19). Just last week, she was quarantined in her room waiting for one of her housemates to receive Covid test results. “It’ll be a...fun birthday,” she texted me.

My college roommate’s younger sister just started her freshman year at Ohio State. It’s typical for roommates to meet early in the semester to discuss pet peeves and boundaries, but she said their initial meeting was far more fraught: The new roommates agreed not to party, and only to spend time with their suitemates.

Notre Dame moved to remote classes for two weeks after a spike in cases on Aug. 18. Senior Claire Rafford has been trapped in her single dorm room on the school’s South Bend campus, which her friends living off campus are banned from visiting. Now Notre Dame is giving in-person classes another go. Like students across the country, Rafford, assistant managing editor at The Observer, has no idea whether the second attempt will work better than the first.

Pogarcic, of UNC, is already worried about the spring semester. “North Carolina’s Covid-19 numbers overall haven’t improved,” she said. “Based on factors now, I’m not sure if they’re going to by the time we need to come back in January. I’m wondering if UNC is going to try to reopen again, and if they’re going to send us back home within a week again.”

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly: Coronavirus Special Edition. Happy birthday to my baby boy and Beyoncé. Reach out rrayasam@politico.com or on Twitter at @renurayasam.

 

BEIJING IS WATCHING, ARE YOU? China has long been a nation of involved and cynical election-watchers, at least when it comes to American presidential campaigns. As the United States races toward election day, how do Chinese citizens believe each candidate would impact relations between the two nations? Join the conversation and gain expert insight from informed and influential voices in government, business, law, and tech. China Watcher is as much of a platform as it is a newsletter. Subscribe today.

 
 
FIRST IN NIGHTLY

LAW AND ORDER HITS THE STREETS  A take-to-the-streets MAGA movement that started online has become a reality, egged on by the oblique encouragement of President Donald Trump and only limited pushback from conservative leaders. It’s a call to arms that has been bubbling online for weeks, circulating among white nationalist-affiliated groups and in local Facebook groups as they watched nationwide racial justice protests and sporadic outbreaks of violence and destruction. Armed vigilantes began showing up at the demonstrations, saying they were there to defend property and arguing Democrats had let lawlessness roam the streets, White House reporter Tina Nguyen writes.

The recent violent clashes in Portland and Kenosha, Wis., represent a turning point in the effort. In Portland, Trump supporters showed up as counter-protesters, and one of them ended up shot and killed. And in Kenosha, 17-year-old Trump backer Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with killing two people in a city that bridges the divide between major urban centers and suburban America.

It’s a development Trump and his team have latched onto as they try to win back much-needed suburban voters with a law-and-order message. Trump has branded the racial justice protesters “domestic terror,” praised the Trump-supporting counter-protesters, defended Rittenhouse’s actions and traveled to Kenosha on Tuesday to misleadingly take credit for stopping violence in the city and other urban areas. “It’s all Democrat, everything is Democrat, all of these problems are Democratic cities,” he told reporters during his visit.

The rhetoric is part of Trump’s two-track messaging as he heads into the final two months of the campaign. To his supporters, it’s an implication: I’ll look the other way if you show up. And to suburban voters, it’s a proclamation: The states have abdicated their duties, and only I can fix the violence that’s creeping closer.

FROM THE HEALTH DESK

‘NO ADULT SUPERVISION’ A White House adviser in charge of vaccine development said Thursday that it was “extremely unlikely” a Covid vaccine would be available by Election Day, contradicting CDC guidance telling states to prepare for vaccine distribution by Nov. 1. This evening, Trump contradicted that official, saying a vaccine would probably be ready by October.

The mixed messages are just another sign of the dysfunctional public health messaging coming from the Trump Administration, which risk undermining the country’s confidence in a vaccine, Peter Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, told Nightly today. Your host spoke with Hotez about why a Covid-19 vaccine won’t be available this fall, how he thinks the administration is screwing up communications about vaccine development and why we should trust a future vaccine, anyway. This conversation has been edited.

Do you think we will have a vaccine by Nov. 1?

Not really. Because if you look at phase 1 trial data from the first ones to go into clinical testing in the U.S., they all require at least two doses to give a meaningful immune response. If you are giving two doses a month apart, it is going to take time to dose 30,000 human volunteers. Then you have to give it time to show that there’s a difference between vaccinated individuals and controls.

It seems like we’re getting mixed messages from the Trump administration about vaccine development — why is that a problem?

We're going to require an unprecedented level of public health communications at a time when the U.S. government has never failed more miserably at science communication. There seems to be no adult supervision over the whole program.

Keep in mind that there’s gonna be different vaccines and some will be more effective. Some will reduce severity of illness. Others will prevent infection. What we need to do is provide realistic expectations of what a vaccine does. We’re still going to need masks and contact tracing, and we’re still going to need a pretty high level of public health intervention.

I have an MD and a PhD. Ivm an expert vaccine scientist and it’s very confusing for me to try to figure out [what the White House is saying]. I can imagine the frustration for the average person.

Aside from the communication part, how would you say Operation Warp Speed is going?

The quality of the science is good. The clinical trials are well done. So, you know, people like myself try to put the best foot forward on what the government’s doing. They make it a lot tougher.

When will we have a vaccine?

I think by end of the year you may have data showing that one or more of these vaccines is effective and safe. Q2 of 2021: That’s when we will start seeing significant numbers of vaccines on the market.

And should we trust it?

If we go through the full review process, I’m quite confident that any vaccine released to the public will be both safe and effective. And I would not hesitate to take one of those vaccines. If you try to shortcut it, whether it’s emergency use authorization or other mechanisms, then you increase the risk that the vaccine might not either work effectively or it might have some safety problems.

ASK THE AUDIENCE

Nightly asked you: Send us pictures of your Covid-19 work or study space. Below are some of your submissions.

Nightly audience submissions of Covid workplaces

THE GLOBAL FIGHT

GLOBAL WARNING Trump’s push to reopen the United States quickly this spring may have saved some short-term economic damage. But indicators both at home and from around the globe suggest that until the U.S. gets its coronavirus outbreak under control, its medium- and long-term economic prospects remain dicey.

As governments release their final figures for the second quarter of the year, it’s become clear that, more than anything else, a country’s success or failure combating the pandemic will drive economic performance, Ryan Heath writes.

Lockdown measures have taken a toll, which helps explain why parts of Europe and Asia performed far worse, economically, than the U.S. earlier this year. But the approach to reopening, including governments’ willingness to embrace measures like mask mandates, are more predictive of a country’s economic trajectory — whether that be a v-shape, swoosh, bird wing, or one of the many other monikers economists have come up with to describe the course of a recovery after a plunge in output.

The variation in countries’ second quarter GDP numbers — which cover the period between April 1 and June 30 — offer an illustration of how dependent national economies now are on the state of their public’s health. While doubts exist about China’s pandemic death toll and economic statistics, there’s no dispute that the country that was home to the original coronavirus outbreak is already back to growth. That’s thanks in part to the harsh regional lockdown in Wuhan, where the virus originated, quarantine systems that isolated victims from their families and co-workers, and mask mandates (now lifted) in at-risk cities like Beijing.

Every member of the G7, meanwhile, is now in a deep recession, ranging from Japan’s 7.6 percent contraction in Q2, compared to the previous quarter, to Britain’s 20.1 percent contraction since Q1. The U.S. is about average among the seven countries, contracting by 9.5 percent in the same period compared with the first quarter of 2020.

COVID-2020

STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER  Trump committed to preserving funding for Stars and Stripes, the military's independent newspaper, following reports that the administration was moving to dissolve the publication. "The United States of America will NOT be cutting funding to @starsandstripes magazine under my watch. It will continue to be a wonderful source of information to our Great Military!" Trump tweeted.

USA Today reported today that the Defense Department had instructed Stars and Stripes’ publisher to discontinue the publication by January. The department had also informed reporters in February that it was planning to reduce funding for the newspaper. The publication receives federal funding but is editorially independent of the military.

The USA Today report comes on the heels of a bombshell story in The Atlantic that Trump disparaged service members who had died in battle. The Atlantic reported that Trump could not understand why fallen or wounded soldiers were worthy of honor and called them "losers" and "suckers." Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly denied the accounts, though The Washington Post and Associated Press have corroborated parts of the story. Coupled with the Defense Department memo on Stars and Stripes, the story shook members of the military and official Washington today and infuriated several House Democrats who had served in the military.

Zuck bucks info run amok — Facebook says it will ban political ads the week before the November election. In the latest POLITICO Dispatch, technology reporter Steven Overly breaks down how the effort aims to prevent the spread of misinformation — and looks at whether big tech giants are going to be able to handle a chaotic election that could be ripe for manipulation.

Play audio

Listen to the latest POLITICO Dispatch podcast

NIGHTLY NUMBER

8.4 percent

The unemployment rate in August, according to the Labor Department, marking the fourth month of declines even as the pace of job growth is slowing. The August rate is down from its April peak of 14.7 percent, but still remains far above the 3.5 percent recorded in February, before coronavirus shutdowns took hold.

PUNCHLINES

WRAP IT UP  Matt Wuerker takes us through the latest in cartoons and satire in his Weekend Wrap , featuring Nancy Pelosi’s haircut, Trump’s law-and-order fear tactics and how coronavirus is impacting school reopenings.

Nightly video player of Punchlines' Matt Wuerker with his Weekend Wrap on cartoons and satire

PARTING WORDS

UNRAVELED BY TRAVEL — Top European Union officials admit they are crossing coronavirus redlines by traveling in and out of restricted zones for official business, under exemptions for diplomats and essential workers. It’s an inherently risky endeavor for themselves and others close to the highest echelons of European power, chief Brussels correspondent David M. Herszenhorn writes.

The officials, including European Council President Charles Michel and the EU"s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, insist that they are complying with Belgian public health rules, and have undergone repeated testing for Covid-19. Even so, their travel highlights the obstacles political leaders face in fulfilling official duties while limiting the danger of infection for themselves, their families, other EU and foreign leaders, and staff. And it raises questions about how leaders determine what travel is "essential" — a calculation for which there are few clear precedents.

Borrell, for instance, arrived in Brussels on Wednesday from Libya — where all but essential travel is banned for EU citizens — and immediately attended a daylong meeting of European commissioners led by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Others, however, did not attend the Brussels confab, citing recent travel from areas designated as orange or red zones by the Belgian authorities. Officials present at the meeting said that social distancing and other health guidelines were followed, and that the decision to attend in person was Borrell’s to make.

 

A GAME CHANGER? The FDA gave Abbott Labs emergency approval for its rapid antigen test, which can detect Covid-19 in 15 minutes. Is this new test a game changer? Or does it give Americans a false sense of security? The health care system that emerges from this pandemic will be fundamentally different, and emerging technologies will continue to drive change. Future Pulse spotlights the politics, policies and technologies driving long-term change on voters' most personal issue: their health. SUBSCRIBE NOW.

 
 

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

 

Follow us on Twitter

Renuka Rayasam @renurayasam

 

FOLLOW US


 POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA






FAIR: Democracy Dies in Obfuscation

 



FAIR
View article on FAIR's website

Democracy Dies in Obfuscation

 

WaPo: U.S. political divide becomes increasingly violent, rattling activists and police

The Washington Post piece (8/27/20) was illustrated with a photo of an activist being attacked by a violent divide.

“US Political Divide Becomes Increasingly Violent, Rattling Activists and Police,” a Washington Post headline (8/27/20) declared last week. My high school English teacher would have taken a red pen to that title, pointing out that divides cannot be violent, only people can. People on both sides of a divide are becoming violent, is what the Post meant. And that is the real problem with this headline and the 2,800 words that follow.

False equivalences are among the biggest distortions that plague corporate journalism, as FAIR has documented over and over (e.g., Extra!11–12/04FAIR.org9/30/0410/13/1911/22/19). Especially in an era when lying has been adopted as a key political strategy by the president and many others on the political right, coverage of “both sides” of an issue without plainly separating facts from fiction actively undermines democratic discourse, and the informed citizenry on which it depends.

People at the Washington Post are aware of the crucial role the media play in making democracy possible. So aware, in fact, that they introduced the paper’s first slogan in its history—“Democracy Dies in Darkness”—a month after President Donald Trump took office. It’s hard not to assume the timing was an indication of the Post’s expectation that a vigilant press would be especially necessary in a Trump presidency.

And yet.

In the extensive genre of corporate media obfuscation about right-wing paramilitary violence, this WaPo piece stands out even amidst some tough competition.

Washington Post: "Armed men push a crowd back after a fight broke out in downtown square in Tyler, Tex., whoen two opposing groups clashed on July 26. (Sarah A. Miller/AP)"

The Washington Post caption (8/27/20) is careful to avoid ascribing responsibility for violence, saying "a fight broke out...when two opposing groups clashed."

The first four paragraphs of the piece describe an armed right-wing attack on a voter registration rally sponsored by a Democratic congressional candidate in Tyler, Texas (an attack the Post and most other national outlets didn’t bother to cover when it happened several weeks earlier—FAIR.org8/11/20). Hundreds of armed people descended on the peaceful crowd, yelling obscenities and physically assaulting them. But this is where the accurate reporting ends.

The next sentence refers to this scene as “scuffling.” It’s not how I would choose to describe a violent attack by heavily armed people. The term both downplays the level of violence and intimidation involved in the attack and vaguely intimates that both sides contributed to it. This trend continues throughout the article, referring to “a spate of exchanges” and a “series of disturbances” to describe a pattern of right-wing political violence directed at protests against police brutality. Later in the article, the Tyler assault is summed up as an incident where “brawls erupted.”

The article claims, without citation or qualification, that “people on both sides…have been filmed exchanging punches, beating one another with sticks and flagpoles, or standing face-to-face with weapons.” Upon finishing the article, the reader finds there were two specific incidents of left-wing menace mentioned: one where a group of protesters harassed restaurant goers for not raising their fists in solidarity with Black Lives Matter (an incident the Post admits was nonviolent); and the case of a driver who was beaten by protesters after crashing his truck.

In contrast to this single assault, the article documents eight recent right-wing assaults on protestors, in addition to the one in Tyler—six of them involving gunshots aimed at protesters, resulting in multiple injuries and four fatalities.

In other words, the article’s factual content itself belies its framing.

The picture it paints is not one of escalating clashes between left-wing and right-wing protesters. Rather, it describes an alarming increase in armed right-wing attacks on peaceful left-wing protesters, usually racial justice protesters. It is a pattern of intimidation and violence, one that is instantly recognizable to any student of 20th century history. Across the globe, privatized violence aimed at popular democratic demands is a hallmark of right-wing authoritarianism. The failure to name—and, worse, to try to obscure through misleading comparisons—what is plainly a threat to US democracy is a dereliction of journalistic duty.

This article’s sins don’t end there, alas. It manages to talk about these various armed attacks on people protesting police violence throughout the country without ever using the words “racism,” “racist” or “white supremacy.” Instead, we have “politically tinged” violence, “political and cultural debates” and, my favorite, “this year’s bitter political divisions”—as though 500 years of colonialism and white supremacy have nothing to do with 2020’s lethal toll on Black lives. And how the Post can fail to see the terrifying echoes of the post–Civil War century of privatized violence against Black people in this renewed wave of paramilitary violence is beyond me. A truck full of white people shooting at Black people demanding their civil and human rights is as American as apple pie.

Speaking of similarities of the racist past and the racist present, the police come away unscathed in this article. Police are “on the defensive,” and “face accusations” that they are failing to protect protesters against right-wing assaults and are “cozying up to” the paramilitaries. This is shameful bothsidesism. Police failure to protect protesters and their chumminess with the right wingers is documented fact—including in the article itself!—not some unproven “accusations.” Moreover, while the Post claims that “the images of looting and violence in American cities after [George] Floyd’s death” have become the right’s “rallying cry,” it fails to mention that said violence is overwhelmingly police violence against peaceful protesters, which is extensively documented.

Kenosha police in military vehicles greet Kyle Rittenhouse

Kenosha police in armored vehicles to a teenager armed with a military-grade rifle: “We appreciate you guys, we really do” (Rundown Live8/28/20).

In Kenosha, the same police who shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back let Kyle Rittenhouse walk away two days later after killing two people and wounding a third. Kenosha police had earlier thanked the paramilitary group Rittenhouse was there with—“We appreciate you guys, we really do”—but a day later arrested eight Seattle volunteers with the group Riot Kitchen, who had come to Kenosha to feed racial justice protesters. Rittenhouse became an instant hero on the right, while Blake lay shackled to his hospital bed. Meanwhile, both local police forces and federal paramilitary units from the Department of Homeland Security continue to suppress anti-violence protests with chemical weapons and other violent tactics.

Trump, who has refused to condemn right-wing violence, defending Rittenhouse’s deadly attack while falsely accusing the left of violence, has also said he plans to send armed sheriffs to polling places for the November election. That’s not in his legal authority to do, but that fact is completely besides the point. The point is that he is adding to the threats of voter intimidation at the polls, all while claiming widespread voter fraud and refusing to say he’ll accept the election results.

The United States is teetering on the brink of full-scale, white supremacist–fueled authoritarianism. In this context, it’s unfathomable that one of the nation’s leading papers could write a piece about right-wing paramilitary violence and reduce it to  “scuffling” without any larger meaning or effect.

Instead of raising the alarm, the Washington Post all but shrugs its conclusion in this article:

With so many people showing up armed, including growing numbers of left-wing ­social-justice activists, police are warning people that they need to understand the risks associated with modern-day protests and political activity.

And just like that, the possibility of democratic protest—the engine of social and economic equality throughout history—is treated like some luxury extreme sport, where you need to consider carefully whether or not to participate. And if you get hurt, it’s your own fault.

Democracy is indeed dying in the dark. And it’s the Washington Post that turned off the lights.


ACTION ALERT: Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

 



RSN: FOCUS: Paul Krugman | Trump and the Attack of the Invisible Anarchists

 

 

Reader Supported News
04 September 20


We Need a Good September Fundraiser

In August we had more donors than any other month in 2019, we also raised the least money. Basically, more love, less money. We’re going to make a big push to get back on track in September. Please put something aside for RSN!

In solidarity,

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


Update My Monthly Donation


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611

 

Reader Supported News
04 September 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS: Paul Krugman | Trump and the Attack of the Invisible Anarchists
Federal officers prepare to disperse the crowd of protesters outside the Multnomah County Justice Center on July 17 in Portland. (photo: Mason Trinca/Getty)
Paul Krugman, The New York Times
Krugman writes: "Lurid fantasies about urban hellscapes are all he has left."

n Thursday morning I walked across much of Manhattan and back again. (Why are all the doctors’ offices on the East Side?) It was a beautiful day, and the city looked cheerful: Shops were open, people were drinking coffee in the sidewalk seating areas that have proliferated during the pandemic, Central Park was full of joggers and cyclists.

But I must have been imagining all that, because Donald Trump assures me that New York is beset by “anarchy, violence and destruction.”

With only two months left in the presidential campaign, Trump has evidently decided that he can neither run on his own record nor effectively attack Joe Biden. Instead, he’s running against anarchists who, he insists, secretly rule the Democratic Party and are laying waste to America’s cities.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation




Q & A

 


 

Normally, I wouldn't be writing to you about a delusional conspiracy theory that got started in the darkest corners of the internet. But after Tuesday's primary, it's hard to ignore that I'm running against a QAnon believer...

"QAnon Believer Tracy Lovvorn Wins Massachusetts Republican Primary Unopposed" - Newsweek

You may have heard about QAnon. It's a far-right conspiracy theory which has been labeled a domestic terrorism threat by FBI field offices. Its followers have been described as a "virtual cult." And now, it's moved out of the shadows of the internet and onto our ballots – my opponent is one of 21 candidates nationwide who have shown support for QAnon.

Believers claim COVID-19 is a hoax and think that Donald Trump is sending out secret signals to tell them that the world is run by satan-worshiping pedophiles who are conspiring against him (and no, I'm not making this up). QAnon has expanded to include virtually every conspiracy theory under the sun -- all while seeking to discredit anyone who opposes the Trump.

But this shouldn't be dismissed as just another wacky conspiracy theory. These extremist ideas are radicalizing supporters and encourging them to commit acts of violence like attempting to assassinate political leaders and shoot up resturaunts because of anonymous social media posts.

In an era of disinformation campaigns, radical right-wing terrorism, and one of the most critical elections of our lifetimes – we cannot afford to have conspiracy theorists at the helm of our government. 


Jim


Paid for and authorized by the Re-Elect McGovern Committee.

 
 




This email was sent by Jim McGovern
PO Box 60405, Worcester, MA 01606.


BREAKING: Elon Musk’s gamble BLOWS UP in his face PAY ATTENTION! ELECT CLOWNS EXPECT A CIRCUS!

  ELON MUSK TOLD MAGA DIM WITS TO CUT CHILD CANCER REEARCH FUNDING! WHAT HAS ELON MUSK EVER DONE FOR ANYONE?  THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING SOCIAL S...