reflectivepundit

GOP House Members Mock America’s Shooting Epidemic

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The first act of the new, albeit slim GOP majority in the US House of Representatives was a telling one: The leadership ordered the removal of metal detectors outside the House chamber that had been put up following the violent breach of Capitol Hill to protect members and staffers from copy-cat violence.

Just as many GOPer were and remain Covid-pandemic deniers, they seem equally untouched by the mass-shooting epidemic that kills increasing numbers of Americans, their own constituents among them.

In a macabre scene, Republican members of the House Natural Resources Committee repealed this week a rule adopted in 2021 by the same committee that prohibited lawmakers from carrying guns in the hearing room. But that was when the Democrats were in control. Several GOP members insisted on their need to defend themselves—and nobody stronger than gun-happy Loren Boebert of Colorado who declared, "With threats against members of Congress at an all-time high, now is not the time to be stripping members of our constitutional right to defend ourselves.”

It seems that guns are not potent enough for Second Amendment fanatics on the Hill.

Why else would several House members, among them disgraced Congressman George Santos, wear AR-15 assault rifle pins at their lapels along with their congressional pins—as they did the other day? This awful pin was a freebee distributed by Georgia Congressman Andrew Clyde who owns a gun store, where he sells those pins.

A sad, promotional coup at a time, when mass shootings in the country occur all too often and many times involve AR-15s or similar assault weapons.

And then there are the grenades that GOP freshman Representative Cory Mills of Florida presented to his new colleagues in what he called the “mission-oriented congress.” In a letter that accompanied the gift, he assured that the grenades were inert and added,  

“I am honored to be a part of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. In that spirit, it is my pleasure to give you a 40mm grenade, made for a MK19 grenade launcher. These are manufactured in the Sunshine State and first developed in the Vietnam War.”

What kind of “mission” do GOP members have in mind?

Are the removed metal detectors, the vote against banning guns from hearing rooms, the display of AK-15 rifle pins and the handing out of grenades metaphors for the GOP House majority’s agenda?

If so, 2024 may not bode well for these political performance artists.  

On the Second Anniversary of January 6th: GOP Anarchists at the Gate

By Brigitte L. Nacos

This day, to years ago, a violent crowd of organized terrorist groups and fanatic MAGA and QAnon supporters of Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s clear and fair election victory. Among those who sympathize to this day with the violent mob and the White House cabal behind the failed coup to keep Trump in office are many of the current GOP Representatives-elect—those who refuse to vote for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House and others who support McCarthy.

While most mainstream media reporters and commentators call the anti-McCarthy GOPers “conservative” or “hard-line” Republicans, the truth is that they along with others in the pro-McCarthy crowd are anarchists or, as former GOP Speaker John Boehner once called them, “legislative terrorists.”

Indeed, like all terrorists, these nihilistic anarchists want to destroy the existing order—not improve or reform the political, economic, and social systems.

They do not want sit at the legitimate table of decision-makers. They want to destroy the table without an idea of how to build a better future for the vast majority of the people they claim to represent.

Interestingly, some of the most extreme congressional GOPers who share the disruptive ideas and actions of their anti-McCarthy colleagues chose another path to realize their power-hungry objectives: They opted to support McCarthy in exchange for influential positions in the GOP House majority in form of their desired committee assignments and influence on the leadership strata.

The most visible examples are Jim Jordan, Ohio, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia, who have been close to Kevin McCarthy since he has struggled to become Speaker.

Jordan, a founding member and first chair of the far-right congressional Freedom Caucus, has been for long a rhetorical bomb thrower and was, according to the Jan. 6^th select committee, a supporter of the coup attempt.

Last year, Taylor Greene was stripped of her committee seats because of her toxic rhetorical attacks and endorsement of violence against Democrats. More recently, she claimed that under her leadership the January 6^th attackers would have won and been armed. But whenever the new congress has a speaker, she will get the committee assignments of her choice.

Add to this McCarthy’s surrender to his GOP opponents by agreeing to all their demands that limits his power drastically and you see that the script for the next two years is written:

Whether the 21 or so members of the anti-McCarthy gang will prevail or not, the anarchist wing of the GOP will hold the balance of power for the next two years in the U.S. House of Representatives and inflict great harm to the legislative imperatives of the lower chamber.

The forces that drove the events before, during, and after January 6, 2021 are still at work and, yes, at the gate of congressional decision-making.

The Horror of Putin’s Nuclear Threat and Biden’s Armageddon Warning

By Brigitte L. Nacos

While many parts of the world suffer deadly or life-changing effects of all kinds of natural disasters--lethal storms, floods, draughts, and pandemics, there are plenty of man-made catastrophes—civil wars, deadly oppression of political dissenters, senseless mass shootings. But the probably most horrific threat today was described by President Joe Biden the other day as the most serious “prospect of Armageddon” since the Cuban Missile Crisis six decades ago. Biden’s assessment of President Vladimir Putin’s repeated warnings of using the nuclear option in Russia’s war against Ukraine should be taken as seriously as Putin’s nuclear threats.

This, then, is the time to remember that John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev found a way to end an existential crisis. Faced with an ultimatum and a blockade of Cuba by the U.S., the Soviet Union blinked. But Khrushchev’s agreement to remove the missiles from the island came with Kennedy’s promise to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. Obviously, Kennedy and his advisers understood that the Kremlin needed a face-saving give-and-take deal. Never mind that the missiles in Turkey were considered close to obsolete at the time.

Whether Putin’s nuclear threat is understood as the use of tactical weapons of mass destruction in the Ukrainian theater of war or as all-out nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West does not matter now. The potential of the deployment of any nuclear weapons calls for all sides—Russian, Ukrainian, and American leaders--to think and talk about ways to end the disastrous war for both the Russian and Ukrainian people.

It would be naïve to believe this to be an easy task. The Ukrainians, on a roll in the Eastern provinces that Russia forcefully annexed and progressing even in the South, are not in the mood for a cease fire and peace negotiations. Washington’s revelation that Ukraine was responsible for the recent assassination of the daughter of one of President Putin’s allies was probably meant to warn President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly to refrain from further hostile actions on Russian territory.

Putin, increasingly criticized openly by war hawks among his longtime allies because of the failure of the Russian military, cannot and will not accept defeat. Therefore, his nuclear threat cannot be ignored.

For all the support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian leaders, Washington, along with European allies, must take the lead in getting Russians and Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

If there is any chance for an agreement, the peaceful end of the Cuban Missile Crisis provides an example that President Zelensky must understand: Without a face-saving deal for Putin—perhaps Russia keeping the long-disputed Crimean Peninsula and access to the Black Sea—there will not be peace but more suffering on both sides.

The Evil Goal of a Supreme Court Justice: Make Liberals’ Lives Miserable

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Clarence Thomas, an intellectual lightweight, had according to one of his own clerks one overriding mission, when he entered the Supreme Court: “The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years,” he said, “and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years." Last week, on two consecutive days, he accomplished that and some more: Within 24 dramatic hours, the highest court increased and decreased the authority of states significantly pointing in both cases to the U.S. Constitution as they (1) took away the states’ power to protect Americans’ lives by striking down modest gun-control measures and (2) gave states the control over women’s reproductive decisions by overruling the nearly 50-year-old Roe vs. Wade decision. The Court claimed to rely in both these contrary decisions on the US Constitution. Incredible.

Thomas, the most radical among his reactionary peers, left no doubt that he wants to make liberals even more miserable: He signaled in a concurrent opinion that he wants the SCOTUS majority to outlaw any birth control measures, consensual relation between gay persons, and, for sure, gay marriage. The three-judge minority dissented “in sorrow” as they put it. Many women share that sorrow.

In her column in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd  describes the line-up of male characters who gained power during the years “by trading away something that meant little to them compared with their own stature: the rights of women." This road put Thomas, now the most influential Supreme Court Justice, into his current power position on the Court. All this began with his nomination by President George H.W. Bush. It was no secret that Thomas was an arch-conservative. But Bush disregarded the long pro-choice position of his family to please pro-life conservatives in his party and win African-American support for nominating a Black to the highest court. His son, George W. Bush, appointed Justice Samuel Alito, who has been a life-long Pro-Life fanatic. And in an unimaginable irony, it was left to Donald Trump to put three (!!!) super-conservatives onto the Court—of course, with the machinations of GOP majority leader Mitch McConnell who conned the Democrats and the American people. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Democrats more than once let him get away with—and much more.

During Thomas’s confirmation hearings, Joe Biden, then chairing the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, presided over the destruction of Anita Hill who testified—in the view of many women credibly--that her former boss Clearance Thomas had, as Dowd puts it, tormented her “with unwanted attention and dirty talk about the pornographic films he liked to watch.” In other words, the one-time sex-harasser and pornography addict is now part of the SCOTUS majority that dictates morality according to the standards of the Middle Ages from which Justice Samuel Alito draws repeatedly in his sub-standard opinion.

Several of the justices in the majority lied to the Senate’s Judiciary Committee and to individual Senators, among them Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, when asked about Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps that is not surprising, since they were appointed by the liar-in-chief Donald Trump. But it is nevertheless mind-boggling that among the highest and most influential guardians of our laws and the US Constitution here are several justices who swore to tell the truth in their confirmation hearings—and once they got on the Court--they lied!

If America wants to stop Thomas and his fellow radicals from making their lives more miserable, they need to be just as relentless advocates of their rights as Thomas and Co. are determined to take those rights away from them.

Protesting peaceful, relentlessly, and voting for local, state, and federal candidates committed to repeal SCOTUS decisions via contrary legislation are the right ways to fight back.

NATO and EU should enlist Ex-Chancellor Merkel as Peace-Maker

By Brigitte L. Nacos

As the Ukrainian military and civil defense units fight the invading Russian military effectively, Vladimir Putin’s decision to place his military’s nuclear forces on high alert heightens the threat of his use of nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian theater of war—and perhaps beyond. In this critical situation, all efforts must be made to find a peaceful solution. And the best person to enlist for what seems a mission impossible is in my view Germany’s ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, She  speaks Russian fluently und knows Putin better than any other Western politician. Her ability to reason like the trained scientist she is would be a good basis of discussions with the usually rational but more recently highly emotional Russian leader.  

The unity displayed by NATO and EU and allies in other parts of the globe in their swift opposition to Russia’s war against Ukraine must have come as an unprecedented shock to Putin. The Russian president must have underestimated how effective President Biden’s repair of the U.S.-European relationship has been. He reversed his predecessor’s efforts to destroy NATO as we know it and weaken the EU and thereby strengthened Western democracies so that they now can resist Russian expansionism forcefully without direct participation in the military hostilities.

Two weeks into this war, the Ukrainian military and civilian Territorial Defense Forces have stalled Russia’s plan to occupy its neighbor. The unprecedented sanctions against Russia have isolated the country cutting it mostly off the global markets. This has already resulted in hardship for the Russian public.

As Thomas Friedman writes in today’s New York Times, “Russia has no good way out [of this war]…” And that is the problem. Not only for Putin but for the Western alliance against him. Strongman do not want to accept defeat, cannot accept a loss. That’s bad enough, as we learned following the 2020 presidential election in the U.S., in a country in which the institutions of government still work as supposed. But in an autocracy with a sole ruler on top there are no built-in restrains. Thus, the danger of Putin’s end game that may include the deployment to weapons of mass destruction.

The frequent and long phone conversations between Putin and various Western leaders are signs that there may be room for actual negotiations. But that would need a most skilled negotiator.

Ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel would be the best possible choice!

The goal must be to find a solution that guarantees Ukraine’s independence but at the same time offers Putin a way out with the ability of justifying the war and its end result as something positive to his people  

The un-American former President and his Idol in Moscow

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Miffed about the lack of applause from Democrats during his 2018 State of the Union Address, then President Donald Trump complained,

“They [the Democrats] were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘treasonous.’ I mean, Yeah, I guess why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country that much.”

Un-American, treasonous, and unpatriotic. Serious charges against political opponents who sat on their hands during another Orwellian speech by the narcissistic liar-in-chief.

And now, after his idol Vladimir Putin has started his unholy war against neighboring Ukraine, the twice impeached former president showed once again that he is America’s most un-American and most unpatriotic actor. How else can one interpret Trump’s praise for strongman Putin whom he called a genius for invading a democratic country next to his Russian autocracy?

 What else can one make of Trump’s simultaneous attacks on the crisis-managing President Joe Biden who managed to pull all NATO countries together after his predecessor’s disastrous transatlantic politics. Worse, yet, the vast majority of Trump’s Republican Party is blindly following a self-obsessed emperor without clothes: no moral compass, no shame, no concern for the fate of this county and its long-time allies.

In Russia, Trump’s buddy Putin is for more than two decades in complete control because he achieved long ago what Trump and his party are trying to putting in place now: a rigged electoral system designed to return King Trump to the throne for another term and guarantee one party rule in Washington, D.C. and a bunch of states as well.

Imagine the unthinkable: Putin and Trump becoming ruling partners again—the would-be Czar and would-be King.

Perhaps, though, there may be a brewing threat to Putin’s power. The large number and the significant size of Russia’s peace movement in response to the war against Ukraine are not the norm in Putin’s Russia. Add to that the huge demonstrations in democracies around the globe. Even strongman like Orban and Erdogan are not siding with Putin.

The unexpected strong resistance by the Ukrainian military and by civilians does not bode well for Putin and his quest for the resurrection of a greater Russian empire. Surely not as long as NATO sticks to its coda that an attack on one member is an attack on all of NATO’s members.

The greatest problem right now may well be the uncertainty. Not only in Ukraine but in Europe and the whole world. Especially, in view of Putin’s explicit and implicit nuclear threats.

Our Greatest Problem is Not Covid but the Imminent Threat to Our Democracy

This week’s first anniversary of the breach of the Capitol by Trump supporters will be another shocking display of the fragile state of our democratic system of governance. Whereas President in a speech and congressional Democrats in a vigil plan to honor the defenders of our democracy and their elected representatives, the former president and his sycophants are reported to plan a strong defense of the violence of January 6, 2021 and its perpetrators. Nothing displays the political divide in America more shockingly than those two opposing views about the assault on Congress a year ago—one based on reality and truth, the other on “alternative reality” and lies.

Political polarization is what serves authoritarian politicians best. As Ruth Ben-Ghiat writes in her book Strongmen: Mussolini to Present, “authoritarians hold appeal when society is polarized, or divided into two opposing ideological camps, which is why they do all they can to exacerbate strife.” This helps to explain the rise and continuing appeal of Donald Trump among many millions of Americans.

The starting point was the Tea Party movement that arose in early 2009 in response to the election of Barack Obama and sharpened the partisan and ideological divergences of political elites and the public at large. When Trump became the public face of the birther conspiracy theory that had massive support among Tea Partiers, he won over what became his core support in his run for the presidency—Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians, many of whom sympathized with the reactionary Tea Party agenda.

During his candidacy and presidency, Trump appealed relentlessly to the emotions of his base and possible converts to his MAGA movement. It is highly revealing what the then GOP candidate Trump told Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in an interview in March 2016 about two powerful emotions he recognized,  

• “Real power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear.”
• “I bring rage out. I do bring rage out. I always have.”

Thus, the titles of two Woodward books on Trump (FEAR and RAGE); the third book, co-written with Costa is titled PERIL (perhaps meant to be the result of stirring fear and rage in the MAGA movement?).

Ultimately, emotions, not rational choices are the main drivers of political and policy preferences. And fear and anger/rage are among the most potent ones.

Can America’s Democracy Survive the Onslaught by Trump and his Henchmen? Will the Press Act as Guardian of Democracy?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Shamelessly like autocratic rulers at all times President Trump spelled out what he had alluded to for some time: If his opponent Joe Biden wins the election, Mr. Trump will not leave office peacefully. Worse yet, he and his henchmen are now plotting a scheme that is to assure Trump’s victory as The Atlantic reported. Asked yesterday during a news briefing whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power [in case he would lose the election], Mr. Trump answered, “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”  

In other words, 40 days before election day Donald Trump America and the world that he will remain U.S. president regardless of the election results. That is what happens in dictatorships, not in democracies. But during Trump’s presidency the rules of the games have already tilted in favor of raw presidential power.

To disregard Trump’s statements as just words would be a grave mistake. Especially when coming out of the mouths of the powerful, words matter; they tend to be followed by deeds.  

Like other autocrats, Trump signals his misdeeds by tweets or public statements. Thus, he makes no secret of the reason behind his rush to appoint and seat a replacement for Justice Bader Ginsberg: He wants a full Supreme Court dominated by GOP appointed conservatives in place to rule in his favor in case of a post-election dispute.

For more than 200 years, no sitting U.S. president declared upcoming elections to be illegitimate and refused to promise a peaceful change of power in case of defeat. It took the worst president in American history to throw his nation into an existential crisis of democracy.

The issue is no longer whether Republicans or Democrats win next month’s election, the issue is whether American democracy survives the already raging onslaught by an autocratic showman and his equally ruthless supporting cast.

Since there is little hope that other Republican leaders join Senator Mitt Romney in rejecting Trump’s power play, the leading media organizations may be the last hope to act as guardians of our democracy.

But that would take an agreement to report Trump’s threat to democracy day-in and day-out as most important news. It would mean for the press not to be distracted by Trump’s daily or even hourly launched rhetorical bombs that are minor in comparison to the existential danger. It would also mean that the failures of this presidency are highlighted every day, again and again.

Especially with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic. The president ignores the more than 200,000 Americans who died so far—more than half of them because of his mismanagement and his diabolical political calculations early on that states with Democratic majorities were mostly affected by the deadly disease.

It would mean for the press to remind the public that at this point the number of coronavirus victims is 70times higher than the number of those killed during the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden, in charge of those the horrific 9/11 incidents, was called here and elsewhere in the West “evil-doer.”

I have spent much times and effort to research the central role of publicity and propaganda in terrorism and argued consistently that over-covering might well encourage more such political violence.

Concerning the coverage of President Trump now, I argue similarly that the news media must refrain from over-covering him and from reporting every aggressive and nasty word he speaks and tweets.

Instead, the news media must stick to the only matter that counts now: Most prominently reported and placed news and commentary about the existential calamity Americans faces—and must resist.

When a Weak Draft-Dodger Plays Military Strongman

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When civil unrest breaks out in countries ruled by authoritarian leaders, protesters are attacked, injured, and killed by heavily armed police or, more often, by military forces. In democracies top leaders recognize legitimate grievances of peaceful protesters, talk to activists, cool down the heat, and leave the law and order part to local and state leaders—especially with respect to terrorist and criminal violence perpetrated by a small minority of extremist intrudes that exploit these situations for their own causes.

In the last nine days, the U.S. President has not acted like the leader of a democracy and certainly not the American democracy. Instead of recognizing the rightful grievances of African Americans and all people of color—not only concerning the documented police violence, he exploits the violent destruction and looting of properties for his own interests.

In his tweets and public statements this president blames the radical left Antifa for carrying out violence. The fact is that some anarchists are responsible for violent acts designed to increase unrest and weaken the glue that holds citizens and their governing institutions and actors together. But this leaderless movement has at best a few hundred activists. The president does not talk at all about the more serious threat: the many extreme right groups that fit under the umbrella of the alt-right: White Supremacist, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists—many of them heavily armed and militarily trained. Last weekend, three members of the far-right "Boogaloo" movement were arrested in Las Vegas with Molotov cocktails in their possession as they mingled with “Black Lives Matter” protesters. Boogaloo members, as some other organized right-wing extremists, want to provoke a civil war and turn it into a race war against minorities.

But neither the President nor his Attorney General are interested in countering the political violence, terrorism in other words, by intensifying the work of the very capable counterterrorism community. Instead, it seems that the President and his Enablers consider the violent part of the powerful protest movement in the streets as an opportunity. As Rush Limbaugh said last week, “Trump is having fun watching the fires.”

Fun? Opportunities?

Just think of Monday this week, when military forces were moved into Washington, D.C. and used raw force to remove peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park. The uniformed force charged the crowd, beat a team of Australian reporters, and used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. A blackhawk helicopter hovered low over buildings and streets to scare the hell out of ordinary citizens

For Donald Trump, the cowardly draft-dodger, this was a beautifully staged scene to pose as military strongman along the lines of all the autocrats around the world he admires.

We know that nothing will change in Trump’s rhetoric and behavior. Therefore, it is most frightening that his supporting cast plays all roles according to the president’s script. A Defense Secretary who calls American cities “battle spaces” that need to be “dominated.” By force. A chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who marches in camouflage uniform along with the President in the park just “liberated” from citizens. For a macabre photo opportunity that is already fashioned into a campaign ad. Docile Republicans in Congress condoning Trump’s misdeeds by silence or excuses that they are “late for lunch.”

November 3^rd is Election Day. Trump mentioned this date often. I pray and hope that there are more voters on the side of our constitutional rights of “peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances” than on the side of a would-be strongman that commands the military.

Trump’s Claim to Be an Absolute Ruler: “I am the Chief Law Enforcement Officer”

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Incredibly, this morning’s most prominent headline in the New York Times (as in other leading newspapers) did not highlight the most shocking and troubling statement the 45^th U.S. president made the previous evening. “I am the chief law enforcement officer,” Donald Trump said shortly after issuing pardons and commutations of sentences to an unruly bunch of corrupt individuals—without the “normal” role of the Justice Department. 

Probably without knowing that France’s Louis XIV coined the dubious justification of absolute monarchy with the exclamation “l’etat c’est moi” (“I am the state”), Donald Trump told us basically that only he determines what the law is, who will or will not be charged, tried, found guilty, and serve a sentence.

Last night, President Trump himself confirmed what has been evident for a while: With the help of Attorney-General William Barr as his most faithful protector and the Republican Senate majority and the rest of the GOP as enthusiastic cheerleaders rather than the constitutional check of an out of control executive, Donald Trump is now no longer the president in a system that was designed by our Founding Fathers.

Even before reelection and a second term Trump is bold enough to do away with the appearance of following the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law—not men and the well- established rules of the game.

In reality, in his ascent to dictatorial rule President Trump resembles now the strongman he admires most, Vladimir Putin of Russia.

The most troubling aspect is the absence of any protests from Washington or elsewhere in the country. Aside from the superficial comments by the talking heads in evening and morning shows and their never changing line-up of so-called expert guests, there were no outcries from leading Republicans or Democrats.

And there were no spontaneous protests by regular citizens in defense of their democracy. Instead, it was a day like any other day--for Trump’s supporters and for his opponents.

Add to this an uptick in Trump’s approval ratings of late and the increasingly bloody and completely counterproductive infights between the men and women competing for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party as the stuff that emboldens this president even further.

Sometimes democracy dies in darkness. This time, our democracy spirals downward in bright daylight. 

Until is too late?