An Assault on American Democracy

One of the key – and very expensive at $250 billion or so – components of the GOP tax reform plan is the immediate reduction of the estate tax followed by its complete elimination in five years.  To many people, that sounds reasonable.  After all, isn’t the “death tax” a bad, un-American thing?

Actually, the opposite is true.  Very soon after the signing of the Declaration of Independence – and well before the U.S. Constitution was ratified – the Continental Congress voted overwhelmingly to eliminate certain aristocratic laws that had been inherited from Europe.  First among these was something called “primogeniture and entail,” a strange-sounding term that reflect political reality in Europe at the time.  The reason the “founding fathers” (that sounds sexist, but everyone in the Continental Congress was indeed male – a sign of the times) acted so quickly and decisively to outlaw primogeniture and entail was that it was the basis of the European aristocracy.  What the obscure-sounding term “primogeniture” referred to was the common practice – often enforced by law – of leaving the entire estate of a family to the first-born son.  Everyone else – including, of course, all daughters – were (in more modern parlance) SOL.  The “entail” part refers to the common practice among European aristocracy of including a clause in the will of an aristocrat that forbids his (it was always ‘his’) heirs from ever breaking up the estate.  The idea was to ensure that the family name and family fortune endured for eternity.

The reason that America’s “founding fathers” put such great emphasis on outlawing these practices was that they realized that not just the aristocracy but the entire concept of a class-based society rested on such laws.  Thomas Jefferson went farther than his peers in this regard, arguing that all wealth should be redistributed equally every 50 years.  His hope was that this frequent redistribution would keep democracy alive and fresh and allow what he called the “natural aristocracy” – those individuals that, for whatever reason, are more intelligent, capable and public-minded than all others – to rise to the top of society and lead our nation.  As Jefferson’s one-time adversary and life-long friend politely explained to him, the proposal might have merits but was utterly impractical, if not impossible, to implement.  Despite not agreeing with Jefferson on one of his more audacious proposals, there was essentially zero dissention among the leading figures of the American Revolution that preventing the rise of a hereditary aristocracy was one of the most important tasks facing the young United States of America.

Then, as now, the idea was not to prevent children from inheriting the family farm or continuing the family business.  The goal was to prevent the emergence of a class of wealthy overlords capable of controlling the political process in America for their own benefit.  That’s why Benjamin Franklin pushed (unsuccessfully) for the constitution of the Pennsylvania to declare concentrated wealth “a danger to the happiness of mankind.”

While neither Jefferson nor Franklin were successful, that does not mean that leaders of the Revolutionary Era disagreed with their goals.  The method for avoiding the possible disaster of American Democracy being overthrown by a European-style aristocracy was the inheritance tax.  Over the ensuing two hundred-plus years, the exact implementation of the tax has changed, as has the rate.  At times, it reach 90% on large estates, but at other times it was much lower.  Today, it is as low as it has ever been in American history.

Under current law, only estates with a net value of over roughly $5.5 million for an individual or $11 million for a couple are subject to any taxes at all.  “Net value” means that farms and small business are not taxed on the value of land or the value or all assets, but on the net value of assets minus all encumbrances such as loans, other debt, contractual obligations, etc.  What this means in practice is that 99.8% of Americans’ estates pass to heirs without any estate taxes.  Zero.  Of the remaining 0.2%, most pay relatively little.  Even though the top rate for the estate tax is 40%, the average tax paid by those who paid estate taxes is just 17%.  In 2012, total receipts from the estate tax equaled less than 1% of the $1.2 trillion inherited that year.  1%.  Another way of looking at this question is to realize that in a nation composed of roughly 325,000,000 Americans, just 400 families stand to reap 80% of the benefit from the elimination of the inheritance tax.  That’s right, the top 0.0001% of the population reaps 80% of the gains.  Looking back at the correspondence between Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the other founders of American democracy, there can be no question that this is exactly the type of concentration of wealth that they all agreed should be avoided.

In the eyes of the people who literally wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the GOP “tax reform” is nothing less than a frontal assault on American democracy itself.

 

Advertisements

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

Note:  This is a post I wrote back on Feb 19.  I thought I had posted it, but I guess I didn’t press the right combination of buttons.  In light of recent developments, I thought I would post it despite the long delay.  The only changes I made today (Aug 1) were to add this comment and to correct two typos that I saw.  (Sadly, everything I do has typos.)

The conventional wisdom among many analysts not happy with the direction of President Trump’s administration is that Russian President Vladimir Putin supported candidate (now President) Donald Trump because Putin expected that Mr. Trump would follow more “Moscow friendly” policies that Hillary Clinton would.  While that explanation might have a grain of truth, I do not believe that it is correct since it misses the primary reason why Putin behaved the way he did and, more importantly, why the Putin-Trump “bromance” is destined to end acrimoniously.

Early in the primary season, before Donald Trump had emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Moscow was already following its well-established policy of attempting to undermine faith in the American electoral system and the American system of government in general.  Moscow followed these decades-old policy initiatives with a modern twist, supplementing traditional propaganda tools such as fabricated anti-American rumors and news with an aggressive social media campaign backed by a veritable army of human and robotic “trolls” to help ensure that Moscow-created and Moscow-approved propaganda reached the maximum number of Americans as well as others around the world.  After all, the traditional target of anti-American propaganda is not just American citizens but pro-democracy activists around the world – and particularly those in Russia or in its sphere of influence.  In Putin’s world view, making Russia great involves making America weak since the world is a zero sum game.

As the primary season progressed, not only did Mr. Trump emerge as the front runner, he emerged as the perfect example of what Russian intelligence services have referred to for decades as the “useful idiot” – the individual who willingly and without payment spouts the exact false propaganda that Russian intelligence agencies devised in Moscow.  Given that Moscow’s traditional role was to “throw bombs” in an ongoing attempt to undermine faith in American democracy, the Kremlin’s attraction to a political “bomb thrower” such as Mr. Trump who cast aspersions on both parties and on U.S. government as a whole was clear.  The repeated assertions that American cities are collapsing under the weight of an unprecedented crime wave, that patriotism is under siege, that American government institutions are actively working to take away American’s basic rights and freedoms were right out of Moscow’s playbook.

Certain elements in the Kremlin may have also believed that Mr. Trump would pursue more “Russian friendly” policies than would Ms. Clinton, but that was secondary.  The main rationale for supporting Mr. Trump was almost certainly to support the person whose stump speeches denigrated American democratic institutions as vociferously as the Kremlin’s paid propagandists did.

It is alleged, but not proven, that Russian intelligence agencies have additional compromising information, or kompromat, on Mr. Trump and his inner circle.  While I have no inside knowledge, even if the dossier complied by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele is wildly inaccurate it is highly unlikely that Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page were the only three Trump insiders in touch with Moscow and that no one else in the entire Trump campaign organization and administration knew anything about those contacts.

Even if such kompromat exists in Kremlin vaults, however, that does not mean that Putin ever intended to use the material to blackmail or manipulate the White House into adopting pro-Moscow policies that are antithetical to American interests, whether those policies involve ceding Ukraine to Russia or turning a blind eye to Russian violations of treaties limiting intermediate nuclear forces. Neither Mr. Putin nor his top propaganda experts are stupid.  They understand that the American “establishment” – the Congress, the courts, public opinion, the media and even President Trump’s own party – would have very limited patience for abrupt changes in U.S. policy that favored Russian actions at the expense of American interests.

Putin’s motive was never to control the White House.  Instead, he was always playing (quite effectively) an old game to undermine faith in the U.S. government and thereby to weaken the U.S. government’s ability to act to check Russian expansionism.  Until very late in the campaign – likely on Election Day itself – Putin did not even expect Trump to win.  Putin supported Trump solely to give more voice to Trump’s almost apocalyptic view of American society and government.  When Trump actually won the election, Mr. Putin and his intelligence/propaganda services were almost certainly as surprised as anyone.

While I certainly do not rule out that President Putin will take a few stabs at coercing the Trump Administration into adopting policies that favor Russia’s drive to recreate an empire, I seriously doubt he anticipates a continued string of successes.  Instead, each attempt to manipulate the Trump Administration will simply add to the Kremlin’s stockpile of kompromat that will eventually be utilized to undermine both Americans’ and the world’s faith in American democracy.

According to this theory of Russian actions, it has always been a given that Russian President Putin would not only cease supporting Donald Trump once he became President but Putin would use all of his intelligence assets to actively undermine the newly-inaugurated President.  This is because the goal has never been to support a “Russia friendly” President of the USA but to undermine the very basis of American democracy such as respect for the rule of law, the separation of powers and equality under the constitution.

If this view is correct, the only reason Putin has not yet begun to dole out kompromat against President Trump and his inner circle is that U.S. media, law enforcement and intelligence have already been highlighting the grievous shortcomings of both the President and his inner circle.  Should U.S. domestic criticism of President Trump being to die down – either due to fatigue or an active anti-media, anti-dissent campaign orchestrated by the White House – President Putin is waiting to fill in the gap because, in Putin’s world view, there is no better way to advance his desire to create a new Russian empire than to undermine faith in American democracy and to render the American government so internally conflicted that it is unable to take meaningful again against Russian aggression.

In this view, the only real question is when, not if, President Putin will turn against President Trump.

 

Oh! What A Tangled Web They Weave When First They Practice To Deceive: A Trump – Russia Chronology

I suspect that I am not alone in feeling overwhelmed by the flood of information (revelations, accusations, denials, counter-denials, statements, revised statements, etc.) surrounding allegations of collusion and/or conspiracy between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Government of Russia.  Tracking the whole web is beyond my abilities (Robert Mueller and his team is working on that), so I therefore attempted to assemble a chronology with complete original sources surrounding just one aspect of this complex saga: the events starting with June 3, 2016, when Donald Trump Jr. received an email proposing a meeting with a group of Russians through today, August 1, 2017.

I was tempted to try to create sort of wiring diagram to go along with the statements to highlight the myriad ways in which statements from the President, his family and various officials and spokespersons have “evolved” (or contradicted each other) over time.  In end the, I gave that up both because there were just too many lines to draw and because I felt readers could form their own views.

Readers be ware:  Having complied this, I can see why the various press attempts at a similar timeline are so incomplete – there is just too much information.  Nonetheless, I thought some people might be interested in reading the full, overly long, version.  If anyone believes that I have left out important dates/events/statements, please send a comment so that I can update accordingly!

 June 3, 2016: Trump Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone stating that Trump associates Emin and Aras Agalarov had arranged for the delivery of “information that would incriminate Hillary” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

June 7, 2016: In a primary-night speech at the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, New York, Donald Trump announces that he will reveal “big news” about Hillary Clinton “probably” on June 13.

June 8, 2016: Trump Jr. forwards the email thread to Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner and to his Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort.  (The exact forwarding addresses and time are in the e-mail chain.)

June 9, 2016: The promised meeting took place.  Representing the Trump Campaign are Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, Trump Senior Advisor and Son-in-Law Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.  Donald Trump Jr. now says the information offered was not of interest and that the meeting focused on the lawyer’s desire to change adoption-related sanctions against Russia.  Because adoptions were suspended in response to US sanctions over Russian human rights abuses, “discussing adoption” means discussing sanctions.

June 15, 2016: The Democratic National Committee’s Trump opposition research file is released online. The software firm CrowdStrike releases an analysis indicating that the DNC had been hacked by “Russian intelligence-related adversaries.”

July 22, 2016: On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks releases hacked DNC emails.

July 24, 2016: Donald Trump Jr. tells CNN’s Jake Tapper that the Clinton campaign’s suggestion that Russia was trying to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump is “disgusting” and “phony.”  He goes on to state that “It just goes to show you their exact moral compass. They’ll say anything to be able to win this. I mean this is time and time again, lie after lie. … It’s disgusting. It’s so phony. … These lies and the perpetuating of that kind of nonsense to try to gain some political capital is just outrageous.” Paul Manafort similarly denies any links between Russia and the Trump campaign, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that such a suggestion is “absurd and there’s no basis to it.”

July 27, 2016: Paul Manafort again denies any relationship with the Russians and again says it’s “absurd” to suggest Russia was working on behalf of the Trump campaign.  (Note: He knew he was lying since he received a copy of the full e-mail chain with Rob Goldstone explaining Russia’s efforts to support Trump.)

July 27, 2016: Donald Trump publicly asks Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Oct. 7, 2016:  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.

Oct. 19, 2016:  During the final debate of the 2016 Presidential season, Donald Trump rejects the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies and instead declares that “the U.S. has no idea” who was behind election interference.

Oct. 31, 2016: U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face “serious consequences”.

Nov. 8, 2016: Donald Trump wins the 2016 Presidential election with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the Electoral College.

Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump’s election, his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, denied a report in the Washington Post that the Russians and the campaign had communicated, saying the campaign had “no contact with Russian officials.”

Nov. 11, 2016: Hicks issues another denial. “It never happened,” she said. “There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

Dec. 16, 2016:  The FBI officially concurs with other U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia hacked both the DNC and John Podesta’s personal e-mails as part of an overall campaign to influence the U.S. election.

Dec. 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway, a campaign and eventual White House official, denies outright any contact between the campaign and the Russians. “Absolutely not,” she told CBS’s John Dickerson. “And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.”

Jan. 10, 2017: Manafort denies a report alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. “I have never had any ties to Russia or Putin,” Manafort told NPR.  (Note: Paul Manafort received millions of dollars from Russian government sources for his efforts to elect Viktor Yanukovich, a pro-Putin candidate, in the Ukrainian presidential election.  When widespread protests over election fraud forced Yanukovich from office, he fled straight to Moscow where he remains under Vladimir Putin’s protection.)

Jan. 15, 2017: Five days before the inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence went on Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday and stated unequivocally that there had been no contact between Trump campaign officials and Russians seeking to meddle in the election. “I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy,” Pence told Dickerson.

Jan. 19, 2017: The day before the inauguration, Manafort again vigorously denies that any contact ever took place. From the New York Times: “In an emailed statement Thursday evening, Mr. Manafort called allegations that he had interactions with the Russian government a ‘Democrat Party dirty trick and completely false.’  “I have never had any relationship with the Russian government or any Russian officials. I was never in contact with anyone, or directed anyone to be in contact with anyone,” he said.  “On the ‘Russian hacking of the D.N.C.,’ ” he said, “my only knowledge of it is what I have read in the papers.”

March 18, 2017: Trump Jr. tells the Times: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.” Asked at that time whether he had ever discussed government policies related to Russia, the younger Mr. Trump replied, “A hundred percent no.”

March 27, 2017: Under scrutiny for a transition meeting with the Russian ambassador, the White House describes Kushner’s meetings with Russians as follows: “Throughout the campaign and transition, Jared Kushner served as the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials.”

April 6, 2017: The New York Times reports that Kushner failed to disclose meetings with Russians on his security clearance forms. His lawyer said he told the FBI the following about those meetings: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity.”

May 6, 2017: Trump Jr. tweets out a New York Post story titled “Bad news for the Trump-Russia tinfoil-hat brigade” denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, adding his own comment .

May 8, 2017: Trump makes the header image of his Twitter account an image that incorrectly states that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had “reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows – there is ‘no evidence’ of collusion w/Russia and Trump.”

May 9, 2017: President Trump dismisses FBI Director James Comey without even warning Comey in advance.

 May 18, 2017: President Trump repeatedly denies collusion during a press conference, but then seems to hedge on whether any of his campaign officials might have colluded. “The entire thing has been a witch hunt. And there is no collusion between, certainly, myself and my campaign, but I can only speak for myself and the Russians—zero.”

May 30, 2017: Trump Jr. tweets another denial of collusion, this time including a story from TownHall.com, a conservative site that consistently backs the Trump administration.  The TownHall.com story repeated President Trump’s mischaracterization of Director Clapper’s remarks.  Trump Jr. added his own comment that “You mean nothing has changed in the 10 month witch hunt?

June 8, 2017: On the day of James Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Trump Jr. sends out a series of tweets denying collusion.  One thanking former FBI Director Comey read “Thanks James: Comey Debunks NYT report about Trump Campaign having repeated Russian contacts.”  The other referenced a report on the right-wing “Drudge Report with Trump’s Jr.’s added comment “If Chris Matthews is willing to say it, it’s over folks. Now can we get to work to ???”

June 27, 2017:  The “Trump 2020” campaign fund pays the law firm of criminal defense attorney (who is best known for defending Mafia figures) Alan S. Futerfas $50,000 to represent Donald Trump Jr.

 July 8, 2017: The first story about Trump Jr.’s meeting with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya went up on the New York Times website.

 July 8, 2017: In response to the New York Times article, Trump Jr. states that campaign issues were not discussed in the meeting and that he didn’t know the identity of the person he was meeting.  He specifically stated that “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”

July 9, 2017: Donald Trump Jr. gives the following new and greatly revised statement about the meeting:  “I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”

July 10, 2017: Trump Jr. sends two tweets.  The first states “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen.”  The second denied that there were any inconsistencies between the multiple evolving statements he had issued describing the June 9, 2016 meeting with Russian representatives.

July 11, 2017: Trump Jr. sends a tweet at 5:27 AM stating “Media & Dems are extremely invested in the Russia story. If this nonsense meeting is all they have after a yr, I understand the desperation!”

July 11, 2017: A few hours after the tweet above, the New York Times informed Donald Trump Jr. that they had obtained copies of the actual e-mail exchanges that led up to the July 8, 2016, meeting with the group of Russians and planned to publish them.  Trump Jr. himself released the an image of the e-mail chain via twitter at the exact time deadline set by the NYT for comments.  The full e-mails in readable form can be found on the NYT website.

July 11, 2017:  On afternoon after Trump Jr. pre-empted the NYT story by releasing the e-mails himself at the very last minute, the White House issued a statement from President Trump is statement from President Trump stating that “My son is a high-quality person and I applaud his transparency.”

July 12, 2017:  Jay Sekulow, the lawyer on President Trump’s personal legal team charged with handling all press relations appeared on Good Morning Americaand stated categorically that “the president didn’t sign off on anything” and “wasn’t involved” with the statement in any way.

July 16, 2017: Jay Sekulow reaffirmed that statement on NBC’sMeet the Press”, stating “I want to be clear – that the President was not involved in the drafting of the statement.

July 31, 2017:  The Washington Post breaks the story that President Trump personally dictated the initial (July 8) statement issued in the name of Donald Trump Jr. concerning the meeting with multiple campaign officials and Russians in Trump tower.  This contradicts every previous statement made by the White House and Trump’s lawyers.

August 1, 2017: While being careful to avoid confirming the details of the July 31 Washington Post story, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders indirectly confirms the gist of the report during an official press briefing by stating “Look, the statement that Don Jr. issued is true. There’s no inaccuracy in the statement. The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had.

 

 

 

Where Next?

To understand what is likely to happen next in the sad but widening scandal of contacts (at a minimum) between President Trump’s inner circle of advisors and Russian officials (including intelligence officers), we need to back up to ask: “Why?”

As is so often the case when dealing with Russia, the obvious (to American audiences) answer is not the correct one.  The almost universal explanation about why Russian operatives reached out to leading campaign insiders such as Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Flynn is that Russian President Putin wanted to help Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States.  Often, this rationale is followed by further details on topics such as how Putin personally hates Hillary Clinton for her role in imposing sanctions or that Putin believed Donald Trump would adopt a more friendly approach toward Moscow.  I believe that those explanations may seem obvious, but they are (to quote one of President Trump’s famous debate lines) “WRONG.”

To understand why the conventional wisdom is so wrong, we need to remember that while Putin may be playing a different offensive strategy, he is playing an old game.  Following a pattern established over generations, President Putin interfered in the U.S. election in order to discredit American democracy.  While Putin upped the game quite significantly, the basic playbook of undermining faith in American democratic institutions has been followed by his predecessors for a century.  The first target audience for these attacks on American democracy has not necessarily always been the United States but the citizens of Russia, of the former Soviet Union and of countries in transition around the globe.  Since the time of the October Revolution, leaders in Moscow have been attempting to convince their own citizens and the world that American (and other Western) democracies are hollow and that their much-vaunted institutions are so riddled by cronyism and corruption that that they are, at best, no better than Moscow’s authoritarian model.

Early in the election campaign, the trickle of leaks on topics such as U.S. domestic spying and the much larger flood of Russian propaganda designed to undermine faith in the American government by emboldening and amplifying conspiracy theorists all fit the traditional model of Kremlin interference in U.S. elections.  While the tone and content of much of the Russian-origin propaganda was clearly intended to play to the far right-wing of America’s political spectrum, the intent was to undermine Americans’ – and the world’s – faith in American democratic institutions. Fifty or seventy years ago, Moscow believed that the best way to undermine American democracy was by supporting the far left.  Today, Putin believes the best way to accomplish that same goal is to embolden the far right.  The methods may change but the goal remains the same.

Shortly before the Democratic National Convention, Moscow’s campaign against American democracy embarked on a new tactic of supporting one candidate – Donald Trump – over the other.  The dominant explanation (particularly among left-leaning reporters and pundits) is that Putin favored Trump over Clinton because he felt that Trump would be more sympathetic to Russian interests and viewpoints.  I believe the majority is wrong.  What Putin hoped to accomplish was the same thing his predecessors had strived to do for 100 years – undermine the very concept of democracy.  Putin’s goal was not to elect a “Russia friendly” President but to undermine faith in American democracy so as to demoralize democratic movements around the world and paralyze the United States’ ability to act decisively on the world stage.

I am not disagreeing the US Intelligence Community’s report which concluded that President Putin personally directed Russian intelligence and propaganda organs to actively support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.  The report is excellent and I believe that the authors are correct.  Instead, I am asking a different question – and one not addressed by the report – which is why did Putin support Donald J. Trump?

Possible answers to that question include “Putin hates Hillary Clinton”, “Putin believed Trump will be more accommodating to Russian positions” and even that “Putin has blackmail materials on Trump and/or his inner circle and therefore believed he could direct US policy in a Trump Administration.”  While those answers all sound plausible, I believe they are all wrong.

The first, that Putin hates Clinton, can be dismissed based on the objective reality that Putin is a very intelligent tactical and strategic planner who would not risk  international condemnation and ridicule at home by interfering in US elections just to spite someone, even someone as outspoken as Hillary Clinton.  The second possible answer, that Putin believed Donald Trump would be more accommodating to Russian positions, should also be rejected on the grounds that Donald Trump is, first and foremost, unpredictable.  That is his political trademark.  He has a long history of first supporting and then attacking people and ideas.  He was a huge fan of both Bill and Hillary Clinton before becoming their most strident critic.  He was a defender of Planned Parenthood before vowing to defund the organization.  The list goes on and on.  Like most world leaders, Vladimir Putin values stability to the point that he would prefer an intractable but predictable enemy to an unreliable and unpredictable “friend.”

But what about the third possibility – the one that posits that Putin believed he could blackmail or otherwise control President Trump and/or senior members of his inner circle?  Media speculation is exploding – but misdirected.  The answer is that whether the basis for the blackmail is as sensational and salacious as some of the material contained in Christopher Steele’s now infamous dossier or as mundane as some embarrassing (and potentially illegal) conversations between Russian operatives and Trump insiders such as Michael Flynn, Carter Page and Paul Manafort, the outcome would be the same.  President Putin is knowledgeable enough to understand that he could never blackmail senior U.S. government officials into consistently taking actions clearly at odds with U.S. interests.  The U.S. Congress (including the President’s own party), the courts and the professional bureaucracy of the U.S. government and military would thwart any such actions.

While Vladimir Putin is smart enough to understand that he could never succeed at a blacking mailing the U.S. government into consistently taking actions antithetical to U.S. interests, he could use whatever information he has – whether it is mundane but embarrassing conversations or salacious video tapes – to undermine faith in the American government and thus render the U.S. incapable of taking decisive action on the world stage.  This undermining of American citizens’ – and the world’s – faith in U.S. democracy is the true “Holy Grail” of Russian intelligence operations.  My sad (to again quote President Trump) conclusion is that Putin is succeeding.  If you doubt that assertion, just ask yourself what being a “patriot” means in today’s political environment.  Somehow, “patriot” has become the term applied to people who question American democracy, support armed insurrection and long for an American leader who is more like Putin (or Kim Jong Un or another dictator).

It is hard to doubt the depressing realization that Putin’s carefully orchestrated manipulation of the U.S. election and his careful nurturing of right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists have already taken their toll on faith in American democracy.  Over the coming months, we’ll all be witnesses as Putin continues his crusade by artfully doling out whatever “Kompromat” he has on President Trump and his inner circle to further undermine faith in a system of government that has endured for over 240 years.

So, where do we go from here?

The best scenario for America and the world would be if all contacts between President Trump’s campaign and/or administration were completely unauthorized and unknown by anyone other than former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort and former Foreign Policy Advisor to the Trump Campaign Carter Page.  If those three genuinely acted on their own and with no coordination, approval or even knowledge by President Trump or any of his other top advisors, then it is possible that Putin does not have much more “Kompromat” to dole out and that the damage to the security and interests of the United States  will not escalate significantly.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, however, and admit that it is unlikely that no one else in the Trump campaign or Trump administration knew of the relationships that Flynn, Manafort and Page had with Russian officials and intelligence.  If others knew, it is a safe bet that Russia’s extremely professional and capable intelligence agencies already know every detail and that Vladimir Putin is now preparing to dole those details out in order to maximize the level of disruption and distrust in the American political system.  If others in the Trump camp did know and/or approve of the actions of those three known “rogues,” Putin has plenty of arrows left in his quiver to target the very concept of American democracy – and we’re all in for a very unpleasant ride.  If the allegations of sensational sex tapes are true, then Putin has even more arrows to fire at the very concept of democracy.  In either case, however, Putin’s quiver is full enough to do serious damage to America’s and its allies’ interests.

Rex Tillerson, Our Future Secretary of State

I just finished watching Rex Tillerson’s testimony with the critical (at times cynical) eye of the senior professional diplomat.  While I try to keep an open mind, I have to admit that there was a part of me that was rooting against him.  I now admit to myself that the little voice inside me was probably wrong.

It is not that I agree with everything Tillerson said.  I don’t.  As every career State Department employee knows, however, we never agree with everything our political leaders say but we nonetheless do our absolute best to implement the policies of the Administration while making sure that our political bosses know the reality of what is happening on the ground around the world.

When it comes to policy, a good diplomat needs to be as flexible as a Cirque de Solei performer.  Another trait we share with a good circus performer is that we have to always be practical, recognizing the difference between what we’d like to do and what we are certain we can accomplish.  A failed policy initiative – like a failed acrobatic stunt – is not an acceptable outcome.  (Full disclosure:  I always hated the “reset”; it was a slogan not a policy and was therefore always destined to fail.)  Rex Tillerson’s testimony demonstrated to me that he is adept at the art of the contortionist, giving me hope that he will also be adept at the art of the diplomat.  He is also clearly practical, always doing his utmost to advance the agenda he has assumed.

The one thing I really wished Secretary-to-be Tillerson had said to lay to rest concerns about his past positions on climate change, Russia sanctions, etc., is:  “When I was responsible for ExxonMobil, I did my absolute best to advance the interests of the company and its shareholders.  That was my job and I did it to the best of my ability, subjugating myself and my interests to succeed at my assigned task.  If confirmed, I will take that same approach to being Secretary of State, furthering the interests of the American people.  Whatever my personal interests may be, I will do my absolute to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and to advance policies that increase the security and interests of American Citizens.”  While he did not speak those words, I think (or hope) that I correctly read them “between the lines.”

I’m not saying that Rex Tillerson will be our best Secretary of State ever, but he certainly won’t be the worst either.  Only history can judge that.  What hit me was that he is qualified and that his background and testimony gives me grounds for optimism.  As an incurable pragmatist (another trait of diplomats), that’s all I can ask for.

 

The Lessons of Orlando

This essay began as a reply to a Facebook posts from members of the LGBT community.  After I read Donald Trump’s latest speech (rant), however, I felt compelled to update and expand it.  Warning – it contains political statements and may upset some people.

First, let’s be clear about what happened in Orlando.  It is absolutely clear, both from his actions and his words, that when Omar Mateen murdered over 50 people in Orlando’s Pulse club, his goal was to commit a hate crime against the LGBT community.   He hated homosexuals; he was shocked and repulsed by them.  Seeing two men kissing was enough to “justify” killing dozens of innocent people.

Despite that simple reality, a number of people, including Presidential candidate Donald Trump, are trying to “recast” Mateen’s horrific crime as Islamic extremism.  Mateen was indeed a Muslim, but the type of blind hatred he espoused is by no means a uniquely Islamic phenomenon.   This is why his crime is clearly a hate crime.

Am I – as Donald Trump shouts about various critics – afraid to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism”?  No.  Unlike Mr. Trump, I have seen radical Islamic terrorism in action.  I have personally been on the receiving end violence sponsored by radical Islamic extremists.  Perhaps that experience helps me to see more clearly that extremist Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with what happened in Orlando and that “banning Muslims,” as Mr. Trump has once again advocated, will do nothing to address the horrible loss of life in Orlando – or to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

The deranged individual who carried out the murderous rampage was clearly motivated by personal hate of people he had never met but whose very existence offended him.  It is true that he was a Muslim, but he could have just as easily drawn his inspiration from any number of prominent “Christian” leaders from the extremists of America’s religious right.  If you doubt the truth of my assertion, just ask Pastor Kevin Swanson of the National Religious Liberties Council, who has publicly called for the execution of all homosexuals.   Of course, the “Reverend” Swanson is just one individual, so you may want to reach out to others, such as the tens of thousands of members of his group or its prominent political supporters.  For example, you could ask former GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal, all of whom appeared at Swanson’s annual hate fest even after the “Christian” pastor reiterated his public call for the extermination of homosexuals.   If it weren’t for the fact that we know Mateen was a Muslim, it would be understandable to think that perhaps he was inspired by Swanson or by Tennessee Pastor Robert Gallaty, who preached earlier this year that all homosexuals must either remain celibate or be put to death.  Listening to the legion of anti-LGBT fundamentalist “Christians” advocating violence against the LGBT community, it would be easy to confuse Omar Mateen for a “Christian” warrior in much the same way that Robert Lewis Dear was inspired by “Christian” leaders to murder a police officer and two civilians at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

If you think that Swanson, Gallaty and their ilk are an isolated group with little real impact, maybe you should also ask Scott Lively from the Family Life Network, TheCall Ministry founder Lou Engle, or World Congress of Families leader Larry Jenkins – all “Christian” ministers who have dumped millions of dollars and political influence into encouraging other countries to enact hate-based “Christian” laws that target the LGBT community. Uganda and Russia are among their “success” stories.  In Uganda, a vaguely-worded law now defines homosexuality as a capital offense.

In Russia, the LGBT community is suffering more repression than at any time since Stalin – or perhaps even before that.  Putin’s views on the LGBT community almost seem inspired by the type of hate-fueled logic spewed by Florida Pastor Jeffrey Smith, who says that homosexuals are the same as murders and rapists and therefore deserve the same treatment.  There is, in fact, an entire constellation of “religious conservatives” in the USA who regularly praise Mr. Putin for his “Christian” laws that prohibit “pro-gay speech.”  That group includes prominent right-wing religious extremists with all-American names such as the American Family Association and even well-established “Christian” political pundits such as Pat Buchanan, a former Presidential candidate.  Even mainstream conservatives, such as The American Conservative’s blogger Rod Dreher, chimed in by giving Putin “1.5 cheers” for his anti-LGBGT laws.  Dreher based his own paean to Putin on his belief that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is […] more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”

The level, frequency and vehemence of the religious extremist members of the “American Taliban” (fundamentalist “Christian” leaders who believe that the USA should be strictly governed by a religious-based legal code of their personal choosing) leave no doubt that the atrocity in Orlando was not a “radical Islamic” crime but a hate crime based upon a sadly widespread and clearly multi-religious form of hate directed toward those who are perceived as “different.”  After all, that is the original meaning of “queer.”  If you really want to attribute the Orlando massacre to religion, then attribute it to extremist-inspired radical anti-LGBT hatred of all types – Christian, Muslim and other.

What makes Donald Trump’s statements in his speech today (the text can be found here) particularly despicable is that Trump is not a stupid man.  I suspect that he understands what really happened in Orlando and why.  He is, instead, an opportunist who saw the opportunity to score political points by misconstruing – and debasing the memory of – the tragedy in Orlando.  The even sadder truth is that Trump was probably correct in his political calculus.  Many of his supporters will likely whole-heartedly support his misrepresentation of the facts.  Even those who don’t fall for this particular deception will, once again, forgive him for his “rhetorical excesses.”  The saddest fact of all is that this type of successful political calculus leads us toward a future defined by more irrational hatred focused on those who are “different” – or “queer” to use the original meaning – because they follow a different religion.   The one thing we don’t need in the wake of the most horrific hate crime in American history is yet more irrational hatred.

I don’t mean to say that all Christians are homophobes who promote hatred and violence against the LGBT community.  I did not quote them in this essay, but there are many, many deeply devout, genuinely Christian leaders who are as outraged by this mindless violence as I am.  A Roman Catholic Archbishop whom I had the pleasure of knowing a number of years ago comes to mind.  When a gay pride rally was attacked by a mob of “Christian” extremists, the Archbishop opened up the cathedral and his own residence to provide sanctuary to marchers.  He certainly was not gay or even particularly sympathetic to homosexuals, but he instinctively and philosophically understood exactly what Jesus would have him do.  Thinking of the Archbishop and others, it seems to me that no true Christian could promote the type of bigoted hatred behind the Orlando massacre, which is why I put “Christian” in quotation marks when referring to the crowd of American-grown right-wing religious extremists I cited above.  In my view, the “apostles of hate” (my term) are most definitely not Christians.  If they have any precedent in the Christian Bible, it is in John’s “Book of Revelations,” where he warns of the coming of the anti-Christ and his legions of followers who will speak using the name of Christ even as they argue against everything Jesus taught.

What happened in Orlando was, first and foremost, a hate crime.  If you want to call it terrorism, then is was anti-LGBT terrorism.  To prevent future atrocities of this type, we cannot be lured in by the false political calculus – or the false “Christianity”- of political and religious extremism.  Instead, we need to focus on the sickness that is anti-LGBT hatred, an insidious sickness spawned by those who harbor an irrational fear of people whom they perceive as different – whether it is due to their sexual or religious orientation.  Tolerance, love and respect are the cures for this sickness, not more hatred.

A Classic Example of How to Lie With Statistics

The March 3 Republican debate showcased a classic example of how to lie with statistics.  (Note: No partisanship here; it was all Republicans attacking Republicans.  No matter who says it, however, lying with statistics is still lying.)

Senator Rubio kicked off a marathon lesson in how to lie with statistics fairly early in the debate when he attacked Donald Trump by stating: “Two-thirds of the people who have cast a vote in a Republican primary or caucus have voted against you. They do not want you to be our nominee.”

What a classic!  Rubio’s statement starts with an accurate statistical fact and then spins it into deceitful story line that is not supported by the facts he cites.  Let’s look deeper.

The factual statistic at the heart of Marco Rubio’s incredibly dishonest statement is that while Donald Trump has been “winning” (to use the dominant media term) most primaries, he has not won a majority of the votes cast.  Instead, he won a plurality – the largest slice of the vote pie but still less than a majority of all votes cast.  In a multi-candidate field, a 30% to 40% share of the pie is frequently enough to be declared the winner.  Senator Rubio would have been entirely truthful if he had pointed out that Donald Trump only won a plurality of the vote, not a majority.  Senator Rubio even would have been 100% correct had he stated, for example, that “you have received well less than half the votes” or that “taken as a group, the candidates opposing you have won more votes than you in every primary held so far.”  That second version is a bit tortured, but still entirely accurate.

Rather than making statements entirely supported by the statistics he cited, however, Mr. Rubio chose to draw – and attempt to convince viewers to draw – a conclusion that is completely unsupported by the statistics he cited.  To reach his conclusion that “[t]wo thirds of the people who have cast a vote in a Republican primary or caucus have voted against you,” Rubio made the assumption that every person who voted for another candidate specifically voted against Donald Trump.  While it may seem somewhat logical that if you don’t vote “for” someone then you vote “against” him or her, that is not necessarily true in a multi-candidate race.  In a multi-candidate contest, a random voter may have had a very hard time deciding between Mr. Trump and one of the other candidates, but, in the end, wound up voting for the other candidate.  This hypothetical voter did not vote against Mr. Trump but for someone else.  If his or her favorite candidate later drops out, our hypothetical voter may well transfer his/her loyalty to Mr. Trump.

I may be stepping into a mine field here by moving from statistics and logic to religion, but perhaps Mr. Rubio hoped that his comments would remind religious Christian voters of Matthew 12:30, which states “Whoever is not with me is against me…”  Matthew was not referring to politics when we wrote that quote, and he certainly was not talking about a multi-candidate primary race!  Matthew’s observation might have some applicability to a U.S. general election in which only two candidates have a realistic chance of winning.  In early primary voting among a multitude of candidates, however, it is entirely likely that many voters have a 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice and so on and that those choices are only narrowly separated in their minds.  In such cases, a vote for one candidate is not a vote “against” the others but simply for the person at the top of a list.

Based on my own ‘gut feeling’ (which has no statistical significance) and a look at numerous polls attempting to measure not only which candidates Republican voters support but which candidates they most strongly oppose, there is no doubt that a number – probably even a big number – of Republican voters genuinely “oppose” Mr. Trump and would support any other candidate besides him.  Not one of those polls, however, supports Marco Rubio’s contention that every person, 100% of them, who favored another candidate in a primary or caucus chose that candidate because they oppose Mr. Trump.

Another way to highlight the faulty logic behind Senator Rubio’s claim would be to apply the same logic to Mr. Rubio’s own showing in the primaries and caucuses that have been held to date.  That same false logic that leads to the conclusion that two-thirds of Republicans “voted against” Donald Trump would also lead to the conclusion that over 85% “voted against” Senator Marco Rubio.  Ouch!

Unfortunately for him, the normally quick-witted Donald Trump seemed to fail to zero in on the source of the lie – the disconnect between statistical fact and utterly false assumption that every vote he failed to win as a vote against him – at the heart of Senator Rubio’s charges.  As a result, Trump’s initial rebuttal was so confusing as to be difficult to analyze.  Rather than focusing on the deception at the heart of Rubio’s charge, the exchange devolved into a meaningless exchange of random poll numbers about how each candidate might fare in a hypothetical match-up with Hillary Clinton.  Given how incredibly variable and inaccurate such polls are this far out from the general election, it is entirely unsurprising that each candidate participating in this pointless exchange (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich) was able to cite “polling data” purporting to show that he would do better against former Secretary Clinton in a general election.  I have not bothered to fact check the polls each cited since that type of poll means nothing at this point in the contest.

Much later in the debate, Senator Cruz essentially launched the same attack – based on the same unstated faulty and misleading assumptions that allowed Rubio to go from statistical facts to an outright lie.  By that time, however, Mr. Trump seemed to have zeroed in on the core fallacy at the heart of the argument and used it to turn the tables by noting that, by Mr. Cruz’s own logic, the fact that Cruz polled just 15% in some poll means that 85% of voters are absolutely opposed to him.  Typical for the entire debate, the ensuing exchange was a bit garbled as candidates yelled over each other, but in the melee it seemed clear to me, at least, that Mr. Trump had grasped the fundamental fallacy in the argument presented by both Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio.

Postscript:  Just to be clear:  this is not a political argument.  I am not trying to tell anyone who to support.  Instead, I just found it interesting how such a classic example of “how to lie with statistics” popped up in the March 3 Republican debate.  There were many other lies told that night, but I won’t go into those.  As someone who is a student of statistical reasoning and its abuses, however, I found that particular exchange in the debate highly amusing.