Mike Lofgren

The dangerous rise of the gullible American cynic

In 1996, when I was working in government, a colleague remarked on the then-fresh tragedy in which TWA Flight 800 exploded over the waters off Long Island. His “sources” had reason to know that Islamic terrorists had shot it down it with a missile.

The subsequent investigation was one of the most extensive in the history of accident reconstruction. The plane parts were salvaged from the ocean floor, rebuilt, and examined. Various hypotheses as to the cause of the explosion—including terrorism—were eliminated one by one.

The overwhelmingly likely cause was deterioration of the Kapton insulation of the wiring that passed through the center fuel tank. It was such a significant safety issue that this wiring had to be replaced on many older airliners, while earlier airline accidents were reinvestigated in light of the discovery.

None of this impressed my colleague, who fell for one of the first major internet hoaxes. It had to be a missile; the accident investigation was a sham. Never mind that it involved thousands of people from multiple, often rival federal agencies, local coroners, private-sector forensics experts, and Navy divers; somehow, they all got their stories straight and coordinated a perfect coverup that is still in operation a quarter century later.

He had similar views on the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia. It either never happened, was vastly overstated, or the Bosnian Muslims had somehow done it to their own people to provoke Western intervention. There was no shortage of brutality on all sides in this Balkan ethno-religious civil war, but the Srebrenica incident was so outsized, so obvious, and left so much evidence that its existence, and the fact that Bosnian Serbs had perpetrated it, could hardly be rationally denied.

A quarter of a century later, bodies are still being discovered at or near the site—and Bosnian Serbs have concocted a whole martyrology about how it never happened and that they, the Serbs, are being victimized by shadowy globalist forces.

Fast forward to 2014. To all appearances, Russian or Russian-sponsored forces using a mobile Buk9 surface-to-air missile shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 flying over eastern Ukraine. The Flight 17 incident was likely the accidental downing of a civil airliner mistaken for a Ukrainian military transport by Russian-sponsored separatist forces; it could have been settled with an admission of error and financial restitution.

Instead, Russia stonewalled an investigation, spread a fog of defamatory disinformation, and vetoed a UN resolution to create an investigative tribunal. Angry relatives of the victims are in no doubt about Russia’s culpability. Nevertheless, my now-former colleague was in no doubt that this was a false-flag operation: a Ukrainian jet deliberately shot down the aircraft to blame it on the Russians and provoke intervention. Never mind that the Dutch accident reconstruction concluded the damage was characteristic of a Russian surface-to-air missile and that both satellite photography and eyewitnesses on the ground detected a Russian missile battery moving into the launch area before the incident.

All through this period, I had thought that this person was an individual, isolated person with crazy ideas and an axe to grind. But now, in 2022, there are tens of millions of them; they vote, swing elections, make policy, impact the health of every one of us by their medical decisions and social behavior; and they are, many of them, heavily armed.

There has been much debate about the causes of this derangement. Income inequality? Social media? The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? The rise of the Religious Right? The American creed of rugged individualism? It is probably all those things and more. There is rarely a single cause of mass social behavior, nor is there an arbitrary cutoff date when searching for causes: religious extremism goes back to Plymouth Rock. Rugged individualism in the service of overweening greed dates to 1607, when the ne’er-do-well sons of the English petty gentry hove to inside the Virginia Capes in search of gold, real estate, and their destiny as would-be great men.

My former colleague Jim was an unusually pure specimen of this American syndrome, as lack of education or cultural deprivation could not be held responsible for his condition. But he was merely one example of a social epidemic I call gullible cynicism: the ability to be dismissive, disbelieving, and paranoiacally suspicious, while simultaneously being astoundingly naïve and accepting of the flimsiest fabrication not only at face value, but with a reverential embrace.

Hence the tragic-comic episode of the Covid-19 pandemic, when countless people posited an airtight conspiracy of microbiologists; public health officials at the federal, state, and local levels; hospitals with all their staff; coroners; and the entire media, in order to perpetrate a hoax. Incredibly, their professional counterparts all over the world were pulling off the same deception in perfect coordination with America. Yet these same paranoid cynics would credulously believe some nameless internet blogger recommending horse de-wormer as a sovereign remedy for Covid-19 (assuming they believed the virus even existed).

In a similarly breathtaking display of gullible cynicism, people with the same mindset as the Covid-19 deniers still refuse to accept the evidence of what occurred on national television and in front of thousands of eyewitnesses on January 6, 2021. The mob that constructed a gallows and stormed the Capitol consisted of innocent tourists. Or they were antifa trying to discredit honest patriots (half of all Republicans believe that). Or they were FBI provocateurs. Never mind that 315 Capitol rioters have pleaded guilty thus far, and their bios all match the profiles of Trump supporters. That, too, is no doubt part of the conspiracy.

At present we are going through a particularly nasty flare-up of this syndrome. But it is not unknown throughout history and in other lands. George Orwell commented on this kind of mental state 76 years ago:

"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. . . . In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities . . . all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality.”

How Putin built the ideological template for the GOP

Despite losing the last election by seven million votes, it is conventional wisdom that Donald Trump remains the leader of the Republican Party. Partly this reflects the Republican base. The media also plays its role: they would rather cover him like an ESPN announcer extolling Tom Brady than filling airtime with colorless androids like Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy.

Trump did not achieve this status purely on his own merit. There was another, formidable, force putting its thumb on the scale in the 2016 election campaign on his behalf. That force’s minions even built his pre-presidential business model, helping him out of bankruptcy. Its enemies – Ukraine, the European Union – became trump’s enemies.

Of course, we are talking about Vladimir Putin. Just to look at how Putin and Trump interacted when they met speaks volumes about the body languages of dominance and supplication. It is therefore instructive to cut out the middleman, or stooge, and focus on the prime mover when considering the GOP’s ideological inspiration.

Although one can find several examples Republican-connected groups, like the Religious Right or the NRA, eagerly becoming fellow travelers of the Kremlin, the affinities are mostly unconscious and demonstrate a decades-long convergent evolution of beliefs within the GOP and ruling circles in Russia.

The development of the Russian Federation from the rubble of the USSR has mostly been a case of the new boss being the same as the old boss. If we substitute the oligarchs for the nomenklatura, polonium 210 for ice picks, and military threats against Ukraine for the Ukrainian famine, we find that Russia is much like the old Soviet Union. There’s even an ex-KGB guy running the place: shades of 1982.

But there is one crucial difference. However miserable circumstances were, the USSR labored to represent itself as working towards a better future for humanity. True communism wasn’t there yet, but the Soviet people were working to achieve a state where there was no exploitation or alienation. The shortcomings of today were the sacrifices necessary to reach utopia.

Russia under Putin makes no such claims. His propaganda apparatus, as extensive as the USSR’s and more sophisticated, does not aim to make the world’s people into communists. It seeks to make them cynical. Given prevailing global attitudes, it’s a wise move. “You think we’re bad? You’re no better, just more hypocritical,” is the theme. As for foreign reporting about actual conditions in Russia, they’re all just fake news from the lying media.

Russia’s foreign policy seeks less to influence foreign audiences positively than simply to create chaos abroad. Hacking, online trolling, and ransomware are part of this strategy. Calling out these actions merely elicits denials, accusations that the targets of the attacks did it to themselves, and cries of being an innocent victim of smears.

Does this sound familiar in the context of domestic politics? Once upon a time, the Republican Party actually enacted policies – damaging they may have been, but at least they were policies in traditional political terms. Since the Tea Party hysteria of around 2010 at the latest, the GOP has ceased offering policies (beyond the very narrow one of protecting the finances of America’s own oligarchs) and is now solely dedicated to obstruction, publicity stunts, trolling, and clawing into power and staying there forever.

Such laws as it enacts in the states bear no relation to solving any public problem, be it health, safety, transportation, or education. Their “policies” are a catalogue of complaints, publicity-seeking, and trolling on issues like COVID, vaccines or abortion, signaling the base, and obstruction (or effective prohibition) of any political opposition.

The throngs who cheerfully vote GOP are not going to benefit materially from this – nor do they expect to. It is enough that their party tells them they are salt-of-the-earth Americans and harasses groups they don’t like: all very much like Russian citizens who vote for Putin’s Russia United Party and despise Alexei Navalny for the unpatriotic crime of promising to prevent the oligarchs from ripping them off.

Putin uses his tame courts to disqualify inconvenient candidates like Navalny; in America, the GOP prevents supporters for opposition candidates from voting. In case the election result still might be too close, the Russian leader creates bogus candidates he controls to divide the opposition. In America, there is the GOP’s manipulation of Kanye West. The differences in technique are mere details.

The Kremlin’s current line is that Navalny is an agent of the West, or even poisoned himself to make Russia look bad. It echoes Republicans’ claim that the January 6th insurrectionists were tourists, or FBI provocateurs, or antifa. Under Putin, Russia is said to be a place where nothing is true and everything is possible. In like fashion, The Republican Party is in a protracted war with the empirical reality, leaving only endless conspiratorial possibilities known as alternative facts.

Airbrushing the facts extends to history books; as George Orwell said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Putin has rehabilitated Stalin as a great patriot, and those who document Stalin’s crimes are persecuted. In the same manner, Republicans whitewash bloody insurrection on behalf of slavery as being about “heritage,” and seek to preserve statues honoring slaveholders and traitors.

Just as pointing out unpleasant truths about the Nazi-Soviet Pact gets you prosecuted in Russia, GOP legislators now want to make it illegal for any teacher to "teach or incorporate into any course or class any 'divisive concept.'" That the bill illustrates what should be taught by citing the debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass when Lincoln’s opponent was Stephen Douglas only adds to the surrealism.

One could go on with these comparisons: the false machismo of the Russian leader posing bare-chested like Mussolini, playing hockey games with professional teams who obligingly let him pile up goals, and so on. This play-acting dovetails with the tough-guy affectation of Republican politicians: the supposed hillbilly cred of a Yale graduate and Wall Streeter named J.D. Vance running for US Senate in Ohio, or the intentional crudeness of politicians who claim to speak for the trailer parks while groveling to their donors at $1500-a-plate fundraisers.

At this point we should ask, where did these similarities come from? Even if the Kremlin directly influenced a few screwballs like Dana Rohrabacher and a handful of party operatives, why is this behavior deeply embedded in so many Republicans, to the point where it is now quite popular in the conservative media-entertainment complex ? The GOP, like Putin and his United Russia Party, are both deeply authoritarian, but why?

Corey Robin, in The Reactionary Mind, talks of the Right’s “narrative of loss and promised restoration.” This is true of Putin, the KGB colonel who saw the Soviet empire collapse and called its demise “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” The threats over Ukraine are a consequence of this attitude.

We should bear in mind that it is occurring against a backdrop of sharp demographic decline. In the past year, Russia experienced a population loss of nearly one million, following many years of decrease. The economy has also steadily dropped since 2014. Its population is now smaller than Bangladesh and its per capita income lower than the Maldives. Male life expectancy is also below that of Bangladesh. Does this sound familiar?

The heart of the Republican base lives in counties that for many years have suffered population decline, such as in Iowa. This was mostly the result of outmigration due to the lack of good jobs, adequate health care, or educational opportunities. The 2020 census shows the trend has accelerated, with 90 percent of US counties that lost population in the last decade supporting Trump.

The outmigration is now accompanied by “deaths of despair” (suicide, drugs, etc.) among the white working class, a phenomenon that Anne Case and Angus Deaton discovered even before the COVID pandemic. While it is occurring all over the country, it is most severe in rural states like West Virginia. The trend is further exacerbated by failure to take sensible social distancing precautions or get vaccinated. Rural Americans are dying at twice the rate of urban dwellers. Owsley County, KY, has a life expectancy similar to that of Russia.

Weirdly, the reaction of GOP politicians to their own constituents’ die-off is to double down on what is killing them, as we have seen with Florida’s Ron DeSantis and South Dakota’s Kristi Noem. In my state of Virginia, the first act of the new governor, whose electoral stronghold is the rural parts of the Commonwealth, was to ban urban northern Virginia’s mask and vaccine mandates. Never mind that the protocols were already in effect and working. His action did nothing to help the former mining towns of southwest Virginia that voted for him, but it was a thumb in the eye of the godless city folk.

This parallels Russia. Most of its population loss since the beginning of the pandemic is suspected to be considerably underreported COVID deaths on top of the traditional deaths by suicide, misadventure, and vodka. Russia’s disinformation campaign against Western vaccines has backfired on its own population, making it mistrustful of vaccination. The country’s own vaccine, Sputnik, is only a little more effective than Republicans’ own cure-alls like horse de-wormer or Clorox.

Demographics explain why, despite the machismo and the fascination with dominance, the deeper note is one of bleating victimhood among Putin and his followers, and the GOP and its base. "We have nowhere to retreat. They have taken it to the point where we simply must tell them: ‘Stop!’” says Putin. This strongly resembles Trump’s whining assertion of injustice: "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be."

Despite their endless bellicosity, leaders like Putin, Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, or Viktor Orban are rarely bellicose towards one another; they usually get along famously. It has often been noted that there is probably human chemistry among authoritarian personalities.

But they also have a solid community of political interest. They seek to rule polities that are socially or economically damaged, and to do that they attract aggrieved and nihilistic followers. They remain on top by continuing to inflame existing wounds as they steal everything that isn’t nailed down. An outbreak in self-government to benefit the people in any one country might threaten the others by example

They have a common destiny: they will succeed as long as the people of their countries are made to fail.

The strange case of Attorney General Merrick Garland

For those who were looking forward to obtaining transparency for the incompetent negligence, malfeasance, and reckless disregard for the health and safety of the American people that were the hallmarks of Donald Trump, the prospect of that reckoning has dimmed. Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be working to protect the interests of Trump and all those in his administration who may have broken the law and were investigated in federal grand jury proceedings.

Garland's Justice Department is now advocating that federal judicial procedure should be amended to instate a 50-year ban on grand jury information. What would this mean?

Had this proposal been in practice during Watergate, we still would not know until 2023 or 2024 all the facts about Nixon's crimes that were uncovered by grand juries. We would have to wait till 2069 to learn the all the legal findings that led to the Mueller report, or any other information about the potential crimes of Trump associates that were uncovered by grand juries.

No reasonable person would argue that the grand jury process doesn't need confidentiality protection—certainly while it is sitting, and for a reasonable period thereafter: say, 10 years. Judges should have the discretion to extend the blackout, but only with a plausible showing that concrete harm could come from revealing testimony. And no, personal or institutional embarrassment does not count as concrete harm.

Likewise, judges should have the discretion to take the wraps off testimony in fewer than 10 years if there is a compelling public interest—for instance, in a political or governance matter, or one involving public safety. But 50 years? That is too much like Britain's draconian Official Secrets Act, which has in many cases degenerated into a tool to protect Britain's upper-class Old Boy Network from the inconvenient exposure of their incompetence and mutual back-scratching.

This is not an outlier of Garland's brief tenure as attorney general. The Trump administration's Justice Department had collected the metadata of journalists, Democratic members of Congress, and their families. Did Garland, upon taking up his post, hold a press conference and angrily announce that the previous administration had done this, and vow to get to the bottom of it? He might have done so had he conducted himself with due diligence and found out what was going on in his own department. Then he would have acted with all deliberate speed to punish those who did it.

Instead, months passed, and it was June before we knew about it—and not from those best positioned to know, those at the top of the department. The New York Times broke the news. We are still waiting for the responsible Justice Department officials to be fired.

And does anyone know just how and why Garland conceived that the Justice Department was the proper legal representative for Donald Trump in a purely private matter that may have occurred long before he took office? The department filed a brief in June to a federal court to dismiss a defamation suit against Trump that was based on an accusation that he raped a woman in the 1990s.

It is something of a stretch for any legal authority to argue that a president can commit a crime while in office. The so-called guidelines that everybody seems to construe as preventing a sitting president from being indicted are nothing more than a Justice Department memo written while Richard Nixon was president. In other words, it is merely the biased opinion of the president's employees and does not bind the judicial or legislative branches.

Those of us old enough to remember the events reacted with a knowing shake of the head when ex-President Nixon stated in the famous Frost-Nixon interview that "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." We figured that kind of impunity couldn't happen again.

But Garland is carrying this perversion of justice beyond the bounds of reason and decency. He is clearly stating, through his functionaries at the department he runs, that a matter between two private citizens that was alleged to have occurred decades before one of them became president is protected by executive privilege.

Am I proclaiming Garland to be a conscious agent of Trump and other reactionary forces plotting to throw a veil of secrecy and special privilege over the workings of what is supposed to be a popular self-government? He does seem to be working against what James Madison envisioned when the fourth president wrote this:

A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

I know myself from having worked in government that the acculturation process steeps people in an atmosphere of knowing it all and being dismissive of the hoi polloi, of belonging to a kind of secular priesthood. People with integrity manage to keep their moral bearings and maintain a sense of responsibility to fellow citizens, but weaker personalities succumb to the temptation of feeling special, entrusted with the secrets. The riffraff, so they think, are incapable of understanding the big picture, and their rights are in any case subordinate to the greater good, which generally means the greater good of the rich and the powerful.

It is highly unlikely that Merrick Garland wittingly is acting on behalf of Trump's interests, figuratively twirling his moustache like Snidely Whiplash tying little Nell to the train tracks. More plausibly, he is behaving in the manner of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. George Orwell succinctly described Chamberlain's probable motives for appeasing Adolf Hitler:

[Chamberlain's] opponents professed to see in him a dark and wily schemer, plotting to sell England to Hitler, but it is far likelier that he was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights.

And so Merrick Garland is almost certainly just a bumbling geezer, doing exactly what his pettifogging legal education taught him, exacerbated by decades of conditioning in the Old Boys Club that dominates America's law guild. In so doing, he imagines he is doing what is right. Still, we need to be clear in our judgments: whether the man is acting out of sinister calculation or in the senescent fog of unconscious habit, the objective results are the same.

There is a supreme irony in this. In 2016, when Mitch McConnell blocked Garland's lifetime elevation to the Supreme Court, Moscow Mitch may have done us all a favor. In retrospect, Garland's probable judicial behavior in the event of his judicial confirmation would have caused most of us far more frustration than that trio of drones that Trump stacked onto the court, all of whom benefit immeasurably from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member who served on both the House and Senate budget committees. His books include: "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government" (2016) and "The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted" (2013).

How the mainstream media fell for the Lafayette Square whitewash

The gassing of protesters at Washington's Lafayette Square in June 2020, by all appearances intended to clear the area for a photo op by then-President Trump, was witnessed in person by dozens of reporters and remotely by millions of television viewers. But a review by the inspector general (IG) of the Interior Department, the parent agency of the U.S. Park Service that administers the square, ostensibly clears the Park Service of gassing the crowd to accommodate Trump.

The following headlines are typical of the major media's reporting of the finding. USA Today says "Police did not clear protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump photo op, inspector general finds." CNN: "Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear racial injustice protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump's visit to St. John's Church last June." ABC News: "Police did not clear Lafayette Square so Trump could hold 'Bible' photo op: Watchdog." Does this mean exoneration for Trump and the agencies dealing with the incident?

No, not even close. Nor could it demonstrate much of anything, given both the predetermined scope of the report in question as well as the gradual deterioration of agency IG operations in general over the years.

As a former career staff member for Congress, I was a major institutional "customer" of IG reports. Congress created the IGs in 1978; the intention was to have an independent watchdog in each department of the executive branch to expose waste fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

While created with good intentions, I began to sense that the IGs had gradually succumbed to bureaucratic sclerosis and capture by their own departments. They became narrowly focused on whether the subject of their investigations adhered to established processes, while ignoring questions of the competence, judgment, or honesty. In short, the watchdog seemed toothless to me.

To test my impression, I asked Brian J. O'Malley, a retired government official who had the double benefit of working both for Congress, where he was a consumer of IG material, but also in the IG office of the Transportation Department, where he helped root out the waste and contractor fraud behind Boston's "Big Dig" tunnel project.

He noted that there is more than one category of IG report. The first is an audit conducted in accordance to Government Accountability Office (GAO) standards found in a volume called the Yellow Book. It is an extensively documented process that has cross-referenceable workpapers for every finding in the audit and those are scrutinized by an independent team of auditors for thoroughness and lack of bias.

The second is an inspection conducted in accordance with those GAO standards found in the so-called Gray Book. It is a faster procedure, providing a snapshot of the operational condition of the reviewed agency's status with respect to any given situation. There are work papers to validate findings but they are not as extensively scrutinized, although they are reviewed for lack of bias.

Then there is the case of the Special Review, such as that of the Lafayette incident: Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park, Case No. OI-PI-20-0563-P. It is neither an audit nor an inspection. It is a review. There are no standards for reviews, no verification by an independent reviewer, and no review for bias. In fact, the review plainly states its extreme limitations. Here are some excerpts:

Our oversight obligations are focused on the DOI, and our authority to obtain documents and statements from non-DOI entities is more limited.

... [W]e interviewed more than 20 USPP and NPS officials involved in policing the protests in and around Lafayette Park on June 1, including then USPP Acting Chief of Police Gregory Monahan, the USPP incident commander, the USPP operations commander, and the USPP deputy operations commander. We also reviewed the USPP's administrative record, emails, text messages, and video footage from observation posts.

Finally, we reviewed U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and USPP policies and procedures, open-source videos, media articles, and congressional testimony.

Therefore, the review was only of Interior Department personnel, the department's documents and apparently some media coverage. In a footnote in miniscule font size the review points out:

Because our review focused on the operational actions of law enforcement, we did not seek to interview protesters for this review.

The principal limitation, which was rather breathtaking, was described as follows:

Accordingly, we did not seek to interview Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD [Washington Metropolitan Police] personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.

Despite this complete lack of information from any of the other agencies involved, the IG review stated unequivocally that there was no evidence that the Park Police cleared Lafayette Park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John's Church. Virtually the whole review rested on the purported issue of the Park Police clearing the area to allow the contractor to install fencing.

But the Park Police would have had no idea what the other agencies were doing and what their leaders were ordering:

Finally, we found that the USPP and the Secret Service did not use a shared radio channel to communicate, that the USPP primarily conveyed information orally to assisting law enforcement entities, that an assisting law enforcement entity arrived late and may not have received a full briefing on the rules of engagement, and that several law enforcement officers could not clearly hear the incident commander's dispersal warnings.

And another tiny footnote states that the Park Police was not even running the operation:

The USPP acting chief of police was in Lafayette Park on June 1 serving in his role as the chief of police, but he did not direct the unified command.

What is one to make of this report? O'Malley told me the following: "Like many efforts by inspectors general it seeks to deflect criticism of their own department by defining problems so that they lie outside the scope of their review. It clearly does not absolve anyone in the White House or then-Attorney General Barr from meddling in the situation as a political stunt. This report is a shameful, cover-your-ass effort to throw other agencies under the bus for all the disgraceful actions on that day. It has been exploited by the malefactors of that day to provide a fig leaf of phony exoneration."

Despite most of the media having been bamboozled, some journalists weren't having any of it. The Washington Post's Philip Bump analyzed the available video of the incident, and concluded that William Barr's talking with the site commanders on scene just prior to the clearance operation would certainly tend to discredit, if not altogether refute, the IG's review.

CNN's Jim Acosta, who was covering the White House at the time of the incident, was more unequivocal: "And I have to say, when I read through this report, it sounded as if this inspector general was auditioning to become the inspector general at Mar-A-Lago because this is almost a whitewash of what occurred on June First." Inevitably, Acosta was attacked in personal terms by perennial crank Glenn Greenwald, who conveniently forgot his prior belief that civil servants were an insidious Deep State seeking to bring down Trump. Now, he accused Acosta of "maligning the reputation of a well-respected career civil servant."

The slipshod IG review is highly significant for three reasons.

First, it is symptomatic of the systemic decline of both government capacity and government's role as a disinterested organ of public service. This decay been going on since at least the early 1980s, but the rot accelerated with frightening speed during the Trump presidency. The disastrous response to the COVID pandemic in 2020 was a flashing red light warning us that when competence and honesty decline, and when agencies are hollowed out, people get hurt.

Second, it is a sign that the U.S. news media never learned its lesson from its four-year brush with covering an authoritarian political party in power. It seems so eager to show everyone that it is "balanced" that it cannot even take the trouble to thoroughly read a document. A similar phenomenon has just recently occurred with the lab theory of the origin of coronavirus.

There is no credible evidence that the theory is true – yet. Just as the IG report "exonerated" Trump of a photo-op stunt, the media is all but declaring that the Trump administration's insistence that COVID came out of a Chinese lab "vindicates" them, although the administration had nearly a year to produce evidence and showed none.

Finally, we are now facing another scandal of huge proportions: the Trump administration's seizing the metadata of journalists, Democratic members of Congress, and their families. It hardly inspires confidence that after several months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland did not at some point hold a press conference announcing the story and vowing that the heads of those responsible would roll. Instead, the New York Times broke the news.

It is likely that after some pressure from Congress, the Department of Justice will announce that it will investigate itself. But the prospect that the department's IG will produce a more credible report than that of the Interior Department just might be a triumph of hope over experience.

Some of our top brass denounce socialism — but they run the most socialist organization on earth

America's love affair with lunacy continues undimmed. Along with flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and fans of perpetual motion, according to a May 21 Ipsos poll, 53 percent of Republicans now assert that Donald Trump is the current president of the United States.

There is a tendency in the reality-based community to regard these folks as obscure lunatics who yell at their TVs in trailer parks when they're not ruining a relative's Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately, this epidemic of delusional belief embraces a more exalted layer of the social spectrum, a group on which the maintenance of our democracy—deeply flawed as it is—may hinge.

This May, 124 retired generals and admirals published an open letter claiming that President Joe Biden stole the election. Traditionally, this letter would have been unthinkable, but a sizable contingent of former flag officers—people whose decisions once held lives in the balance—has gone full QAnon, writing: "Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government which must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic."

(A small but telling note: the letter employs the phrase "Democrat Congress," a grammatical barbarism that has done duty as a rhetorical device for Republican operatives for at least 40 years, demonstrating that the signatories are rabid political partisans rather than constitutional scholars).

The screed goes on, asserting that "we are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776," a claim that makes us wonder how the signers ever graduated from their service academies, since a little incident called the American Civil War is an important part of the academies' military history curricula.

They also question "the mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief." Given the endorsement of the letter by a raving lunatic like Lieutenant General William Boykin and convicted Iran-Contra criminal Vice Admiral John Poindexter, one just might infer a degree of psychological projection on the part of the signers.

The letter garnered condemnation from other retired officers and military analysts, but also a surprising complacency from former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who noted that no retired four-stars signed it and only a handful of three-stars: "It's not very senior… In our world it's not very significant in terms of people."

It may be cold comfort that there are "only" retired three-stars on the letter, but what about those officers who are still serving?

It turns out that the same month the letter appeared, a lieutenant colonel was removed from his command after appearing on a conservative podcast touting his book Irresistible Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military, which claims that Marxist ideologies have infiltrated the military.

It is noteworthy that he was only cashiered after the podcast, whereas the book already was in print. Previously, it would have been inconceivable that a military officer could even receive permission to write an ideological screed like that. Ordinarily, they are allowed to write freely on military or technical topics, but political diatribes are strictly off-limits. Someone in the command structure was very lax.

Nevertheless, it was predictable that the Right would see him as a persecuted member of the military who fell afoul of political correctness. And sure enough, Matt Gaetz came through.

There is considerable irony in the fact that both the letter and the colonel's rant denounce "socialism," the premier bugaboo of right-wingers everywhere. At one level, it is of course the usual childish nonsense that has been disseminated for decades by the kind of mentality that once denounced fluoridation as a Bolshevik plot. Yet in a sense that is quite the opposite of what they intend, these people might have a point about socialism infiltrating the military.

All these self-styled guardians of the Republic, whether retired flag officers luxuriating in their beach-front homes in San Diego, or active-duty military vandalizing the capitol building, are beneficiaries of socialism. Their profession has a 20-year retirement, free lifetime health care for retirees, housing allowances, food allowances, privileges at heavily-subsidized commissaries and PXs (which, fittingly, somewhat resemble the special stores the old Soviet nomenklatura had), free fitness centers, golf courses, and the list goes on.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the capitalist transformation of nominally "Red" China, socialism as a hegemonic political system is confined to backwaters like North Korea. The U.S. military is now the biggest socialist enterprise remaining on earth.

For officers, particularly those with experience in weapons acquisition, the gravy train doesn't end with retirement. Aside from their retirement pay and other continuing benefits, they can snag a job with a defense contractor to peddle influence with their former colleagues. Far from being private enterprise, defense firms like Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman are hothouse plants, sustained only by the contracts the military steers to them; they would wither and die if subjected to the cold winds of actual market competition.

Proof of this is the F-35 fighter. The most expensive weapons program in history, the plane has been a snake-bitten fiasco from its inception, and it demonstrates that nothing succeeds like failure—as long as it's too big to fail. As an engineering disaster, the F-35 ranks with the Soviet reversal of the flow of rivers into the Aral Sea.

No one can seriously argue that those who bear the brunt of battle should not be adequately compensated and granted all necessary benefits. The problem is that the vast majority of combat casualties are enlisted personnel, and only a small percentage of these will serve long enough to receive retirement pay, whereas colonels and generals by definition have enough service to receive retired pay as well as all the other benefits.

It doesn't end there. Congress usually appropriates an annual military pay raise. The brass, of course, insist that these be across-the-board. Let's say the pay raise is 3 percent. That means a buck private at $21,420 per year base pay gets a modest increase—$643—while a lieutenant general, at $199,296 base pay, receives almost $6,000. It amounts to socialism for the better-off, and it is curiously just like all the tax cuts of the last four decades: a windfall for the rich, crumbs for the working stiff. Each succeeding year of military pay raises will only increase the disparity.

The rationale for across-the-board pay raises is as an incentive in hold onto those with valuable skills. While this makes sense to keep a jet engine mechanic for whose talents a commercial airline will pay a premium, I am unaware that we have any difficulty retaining generals. In the case of my hypothetical lieutenant general, he also will likely be provided with a representational house, complete with an enlisted cook and driver, in order to ease the strain of command.

We can be rather safe in assuming that those 124 retired flag officers who wrote the letter decrying socialism knew whereof they spoke from their own deep personal experience: at the commissaries where they shop, and from the free health care they receive to the cut-price gin fizzes they drink at the local officers' club.

The congressman from Hell is a symptom of our rotten political system

Picture a member of congress and what do you see? He's a guy (those in question are usually still men, despite Marjorie Taylor Greene) with an ego the size of the Capitol dome itself, but a strangely fragile and insecure one. He'd run down his grandmother to get his mug on camera and tell the world his profound thoughts, but in private he can be strangely hollow and ignorant when the occasion doesn't call for prefabricated talking points. Imagine Ted Knight without the lovable charm.

That is a caricature, to be sure, but one that in many cases has become uncomfortably close to reality. The cause is not hard to find. For decades, large swathes of the American public have chosen to regard politics as a dirty business, and those who engage in it as scoundrels or buffoons. In so doing, they devalue the institutions that shape the civil society in which they live.

To some degree, this contempt has always been present in American political culture, but it took off in 1981 when Ronald Reagan declared that government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. Since then, like a chorus of parrots, practically every Republican office holder has squawked this meme in unison. Eventually it became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as a glance at today's GOP will reveal.

Consider the case of Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who is now subject to a lawsuit from a former staffer. The suit claims that the staffer and other office colleagues were "recklessly" infected with coronavirus by the COVID-positive Lamborn, who lied to the House physician about his contact with staff and others. Further, he coerced the staffers not to discuss with anyone their contact with COVID-positive persons. The suit further alleges that the staffer was fired for objecting to all this.

If that weren't enough, the suit also states that Lamborn's son lived rent-free in the basement of the Capitol. Another fascinating revelation is that the congressman uses his staff members as gofers to do personal errands like moving furniture to his vacation home and requiring his employees to help his little Johnny fill in federal employment applications and answer job interview questions. Lamborn appears to view our national Capitol like a Holiday Inn: "Kids stay free!"

Behold the Congressman from Hell: not only a petty tyrant and socially dangerous misanthrope, but a chiseler and hypocrite to boot. By his lights, the federal government is evil, but when it comes to getting your kid on the gravy train, all those rock-ribbed principles about limited government go out the window. In truth, I encountered numerous Republicans during my career in Washington who railed against the federal government and devoted all the ingenuity of Hades to cutting federal benefits, but whose entire adult life was spent on the federal dime.

Lamborn is not the only Republican to endanger his staff and others. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a charter member of the Congressional Knucklehead Caucus), reportedly "berated" staff members for wearing mask.

Another revealing twist in the Doug Lamborn saga is that while lying to the attending physician, he also omitted mentioning that he slept in his congressional office. The practice of bunking in one's office is exactly what Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) warned about last year when she complained the practice risked spreading coronavirus to employees and janitorial staff.

There is another aspect to this beyond the potential of spreading disease. Fifty years ago, the notion of members sleeping in their offices was unheard of. The first time it came to my attention was in the 1980s, when a then-obscure flat-tax zealot named Dick Armey started the practice. He was widely considered a kook for doing it. Now it is all the rage, with upwards of 100 members so engaged, most of them Republicans, including House minority leader Kevin McCarthy.

They typically plead poverty. So do millions of American renters who have faced eviction during the pandemic. But the very Republicans who have no problem with the unauthorized mooching of government space for a free overnight have been very hard-line about denying rental assistance or an eviction moratorium in the various COVID relief bills. Apparently, poverty bites much harder at the $174,000 a year level, the current congressional salary, than it does for an Uber driver or waitress.

There's also the undeniable "Ick!" factor in play. House janitors, many of them women, are obliged to clean the offices late at night, potentially seeing the occupant in various stages of dishabille. As Rep. Speier notes, "During the height of the 'Me Too' movement in the House, there were stories about members in their pajamas talking to staff. It's abnormal to do that."

Beyond that, how mentally healthy is it habitually to sleep in the same cramped office you just spent ten or twelve hours in? Is living like a 22-year-old tech start-up entrepreneur a good look for people whose average age is 58?

Then there are the legal issues. What Lamborn, McCarthy, and the rest of them are doing is misappropriating federal office space for private residential purposes. At the very least, the rent they do not pay should be imputed as income on their federal taxes.

Why even bother to bring up such seemingly trivial matters when there are far bigger issues affecting the country? Simply put, the people I have described are deciding on those issues. Politicians like Lamborn or Gohmert or way too many others I have seen over the years, lack the judgment or ethics to make the proper choices. If we are facing major surgery, we certainly will try to get a specialist, if possible. Even when hiring a plumber, we'd probably read the online reviews. Yet millions of Americans vote out of ignorance or blind partisan loyalty.

The tyrannizing of staffers is another factor that gets too little attention. Many Americans write off congressional staff as hacks or drones and figure that, since they signed up for it, they deserve whatever they get. As constitutional officers, all members of Congress have wide latitude to run their offices as they see fit, and Congress as an institution has been reluctant to intervene. The Congressional Accountability Act (under which the ex-staffer of Lamborn filed the suit) was an attempt at some mitigation of workplace harassment, but it remains mostly toothless.

This issue matters: since the Newt Gingrich speakership, congressional staff has been progressively de-professionalized. House committee staff, where most of the legislative work gets done, has grown smaller in total personnel, even while those same committees load up on additional press secretaries. This means fewer legislative experts and more people like Sean Spicer and Stephen Miller—who, before their illustrious stints with Donald Trump, were congressional press secretaries.

What self-respecting professional would willingly subject himself to humiliating or even dangerous antics on the part of their employer? Increasingly, only young zealots, caught up in the holy crusade of "the movement," would want to work for some bellowing imbecile like Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan. And even the zealots usually burn out after a few years and leave.

The moral of the story? If these congressmen run their little office fiefdoms like incompetent and half-insane despots, is it any wonder that American politics writ large is broken? And what do you think it would be like if they had unfettered control of the country?

Perhaps the most depressing conclusion is to concede the possibility that these congressmen from hell just might be an accurate reflection of the people who elect them.

Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member who served on both the House and Senate budget committees. His books include: "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government" (2016) and "The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted" (2013).

Trump was no fluke: George W. Bush blazed the trail

My friend and former colleague Bruce Bartlett has done a service by reminding us that after four years of the non-stop catastrophe that was the Trump administration, we should not lull ourselves with the illusion that the 45th president was some aberration that fell out of the sky.

His flamboyant criminality and relentlessly malignant personality may exert the same sick fascination as watching a grisly car crash, but in terms of creating disasters, Trump has nothing on George W. Bush.

As Bartlett points out, Bush's presidency was filled with the same hubris, incomprehension of rational policy, and disdain for any government employee who told the president other than what he wanted to hear. There was much the same contempt for expertise ("I don't do nuance."). But understandably, Bartlett focuses on his own area of expertise, economics. National security gets only brief mention.

As one who spent a career in the national security field, I believe that's where the real demons lay. It constitutes Bush's true legacy.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 marked the rest of Bush's presidency, gave him a convenient boost in popularity, and probably were responsible for getting him a second term. Yet he ignored so many indications of an impending attack that even the 9/11 Commission, replete as it was with equivocation, coverups, and pussyfooting generally, proclaimed that "the system was blinking red."

Yet Bush preferred to spend that summer playing golf, telling the CIA briefer who informed him of the threat, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." That behavior strangely foreshadowed Trump's dismissal of medical experts warning him of the coronavirus. Like Bush, he had better things to do—such as protecting Wall Street.

The almost incomprehensible ease with which the terrorists succeeded was such that a large portion of the American people simply could not believe it wasn't a false flag operation. This paranoia was reinforced by the speed with which Bush and his cronies exploited the attack both for crass political gain, and (even worse) to provide a flimsy excuse to invade a country which had nothing to do with the attackers—but whose leader was a bête noir of the Bush family.

The bald facts of Bush's incompetent negligence were bad enough and should have gotten him impeached. But his brazen use of the tragedy as an excuse to invade the wrong country gave impetus to a plague of conspiratorial thinking that now pervades and suffocates political thought. The bogus "technical" arguments of conspiracy buffs about the melting point of steel in the twin towers were merely the precursors of far-fetched theories about coronavirus being a hoax, and the victims being crisis actors. America's mental hygiene has never been the same since that day in September.

The crippling human and material cost of Afghanistan and Iraq set our country on a downward spiral that continues to this day.

Future historians may view 9/11's effect on the United States as spookily paralleling the 1914 terrorist incident in Sarajevo for its impact on the Habsburg Empire and the igniting of World War I. For us—although in a more protracted manner – 9/11 may have spelled the beginning of the end, just as Sarajevo did with the Habsburgs.

Initially, the government in Vienna thought the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand at the hands of a Serbian gunman to be a tragedy, but by no means an existential crisis for the monarchy. But soon enough, the militant faction, led by Foreign Minister Berchtold and General Hötzendorf exploited it as a means to rid Austria of the Serbian "menace" once and for all. They contrived to send an ultimatum of demands to Serbia that no self-respecting nation could possibly accept. They succeeded in getting their war.

That eerily foretells how Bush administration gunslingers like Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld resolved to exploit 9/11. Rumsfeld jotted down in his notes,"Near term target needs—go massive—sweep it all up, things related and not." Empowering the CIA or Special Forces to locate and neutralize the 9/11 plotters wasn't enough. Bush and his paladins gave Afghanistan's Taliban regime an ultimatum they could not accept, and, for good measure, proceeded to give Iraq the same treatment. We know the rest.

The crippling human and material cost of Afghanistan and Iraq set our country on a downward spiral that continues to this day. Those hideous misadventures spawned the Department of Homeland Security, the agency with the Orwellian name whose menacing potential is held in check mainly by incompetence. Former employees tell me it is far less than the sum of the agencies that were folded into it.

Yet, even as the twin disaster of Iraq and Afghanistan became evident to any thinking person, the combination of fear, vengeance, hatred, and hubris that the Republican propaganda machine whipped up got the public into lather. Foreign policy could no longer be viewed with detachment as an issue of national interests, cost, and risk. It became one more weapon in the culture wars arsenal. The 2004 was a referendum on Iraq, and, significantly, it remains the only time since 1988 that a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote.

Congress entered a steep decline, sinking to the level of Franco's cortes or the central committee under Stalin. Before the Iraq invasion, I conveyed my strategic concerns to a couple of congressmen. One of them slapped his forehead with the heel of his hand and said in mock regret, "Mike, I wish you hadn't told me that!" But I didn't change anyone's vote (after all, I wasn't a lobbyist with a checkbook). This, too, presages the behavior of Republican legislators toward Trump. Off the record, they are alarmed by him and disdainful. In public, they are as grovelingly adoring of him as Kim Jong Un's subordinates are to the Dear Leader.

Bush's disasters reverberate to this day. Our foreign policy establishment evidently feels toward Afghanistan as a man who has a wolf by the ears. He knows he can't hold on forever, but he dares not let go. Iraq, where al Qaeda did not exist, spawned al Qaeda in Iraq, which begat ISIS, which then spread to Syria.

It is doubtful a president with the wisdom of Solomon could solve the Middle East problems that Bush created. And, as if to magnify the errors of his Republican predecessor, Trump abrogated the nuclear agreement with Iran, one of the few positive steps the United States has taken in that region in recent decades (and an agreement that Iran was complying with). For good measure, he gave a hearty thumbs up to the Saudi monarchy's murderous bombing of Yemeni civilians.

In any case, time is not on our side. For a decade or more, liberals have congratulated themselves on projected demographic changes in the country that would mean a more diverse, better educated electorate. That change simply has not happened in an electorally beneficial manner, and is unlikely to do so in the medium term.

Indeed, because of our absurdly archaic electoral system, demographic sorting by region may actually exacerbate the inability to produce an electorate that will vote for moderate – let alone progressive—foreign and domestic policies that will not replicate the disasters I have described. And it could lead to an even more authoritarian GOP; the party that already produced Bush and Trump could stumble upon a Führer who was actually competent, and the game will be over.

Just as Austria's cumbersome dual monarchy was not up to the challenges of the 20th century, so it is in the 21st century with America's antique political system (there is only one example of an institution comparable to our own electoral college: the electors of the Holy Roman Empire, a state which ceased to exist in 1806). The very structure of our system, combined with an increasingly paranoid and disinformed electorate, means the likelihood of producing a dud occupying the Oval Office is roughly 50/50.

Austria, though, in its twilight at least produced Gustav Mahler, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper. We seem to be stuck with Ted Nugent and Kanye West.

Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member who served on both the House and Senate budget committees. His books include: "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government" (2016) and "The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted" (2013).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the peril of America's aging elite

“The graveyards are full of indispensable men,” Charles de Gaulle is reputed to have said. Despite the mordant wisdom most of us see in that statement, an alarming number of people refuse to follow his implicit advice. Many of us, particularly in America, the land of rugged individualism, see ourselves as crucial in the grand scheme of things, and are reluctant to leave the stage. That may explain the real insecurity behind the common belief in the immortality of the soul.

Keep reading... Show less

Why a commission to investigate presidential crimes would be a huge mistake

On August 15, Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell of California proposed, through the medium of (what else?) Twitter, that after the election a “Presidential Crimes Commission” should be created to investigate the manifold derelictions of Donald J. Trump, including “[s]abotaging the mail to win an election.” He evidently regards this idea as a bold and meaningful innovation: “I don’t say this lightly.”

Keep reading... Show less

Former GOP congressional aide: Republicans will sacrifice lives on the altar of the economy to propitiate an angry and jealous god named Trump

The New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman is one of the few fixtures of the major prestige media honest enough to forthrightly explain why there should be no “controversy” (a word beloved of journalists) about Republican policies.

Keep reading... Show less

The GOP has become a death cult

A decade ago, in my first public writing since leaving Capitol Hill, I warned that the Republican Party, in its evolution towards an extremist conservative movement allied with extremist Christian fundamentalism, was becoming like “one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.” After Donald Trump’s enthronement as the decider of our fate, I analyzed the GOP’s descent into a nihilism that belied every one of its supposed “values.” They value only absolute power or ruin.

Keep reading... Show less

How a Yale professor trolls the liberals on Trump’s reelection by writing propaganda disguised as academic analysis

A recent piece in The Wall Street Journal by Walter Russell Mead has caused a bit of a stir among the chattering classes. Headlined “The Coronavirus May Make Trump Stronger,” it argues that President Trump’s abysmal and malfeasant handling of the greatest public health emergency in a century is a feature, not a bug, in his quest for a second term.

Keep reading... Show less

How cultish authoritarianism short-circuits the lizard brain

The tendency of Republicans both to respond to and sow fear and panic has been with us for decades. Yet during the coronavirus pandemic, to anyone who bothers to look, we are seeing a new and strangely unremarked twist to their behavior, a development that gives valuable -- and chilling -- insight into Republican psychology.

Keep reading... Show less

'Republicans have become a cult run by crooks': Former GOP congressional staffer explains why the party 'has become a creepy mashup of grade B totalitarianism' and 'Freudian manias'

Item: Bob Livingston. Remember him? When last seen by the wider public in the waning, innocent years of the 20th century, he was the newly minted designee to succeed Newt Gingrich as Republican Speaker of the House.

Keep reading... Show less

No cause has achieved the same combination of deranged views and raw, pervasive national power as the modern American right

First, the usual disclaimer: every cause, movement, ideology, religion, or political party necessarily attracts its fair share of kooks, neurotics, con artists, and would-be Führers. It is in the interaction between the lonely, isolated soul that paradoxically seeks both self-expression and extinction in the mass, and the volatile dynamic of crowd psychology that the pathological aspects of belief systems play out.

Keep reading... Show less

When it comes to plutocrats like Epstein and Trump, always assume the worst

By now, everyone not vacationing in a sensory-deprivation tank knows the outlines of the sordid tale of self-proclaimed hedge fund magnate Jeffrey Epstein. In the fallout from his July 6 arrest, the implications of the case, especially considering the plutocrats, politicians and other elites who knew him, cast doubt on one of the bedrock assumptions of American public life.

Keep reading... Show less

How reverse Darwinian selection afflicts Trump’s Washington

In the 1960s, at the very dawn of the New Right rebellion, William F. Buckley, Jr., declared that he would rather be governed by persons selected from the phone directory than the faculty of Harvard. Conservative egghead bashing has a long pedigree, and even Buckley, an aspiring patrician with one of the most laboriously affected accents ever heard, felt obliged to join in the populist trolling.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's why Pence is just as unfit to be president as Trump

In the last two years, the press has spilled a Niagara of ink to describe President Donald Trump’s lies, flipflops, personal weirdness, and sheer unsuitability for office. As for Vice President Michael Richard Pence, despite his hectoring insistence on being the chosen instrument of the Almighty, many observers have resignedly noted that at least he has had the relevant experience in state and federal government his boss lacks, and remains (if barely) within the spectrum of behaviors of the typical American officeholder. Some have even identified him as the anonymous author of the September 2018 New York Times op-ed blasting Trump.

Keep reading... Show less

Republican Insider Explains How Religion Destroyed the GOP

Having observed politics up close and personal for most of my adult lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism may have been the key ingredient in the transformation of the Republican Party. Politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes—at least in the minds of its followers—all three of the GOP’s main tenets: wealth worship, war worship, and the permanent culture war.

Keep reading... Show less

Did Putin Commit a Historic Blunder Lending His Support to Trump and the Alt-Right?

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Keep reading... Show less

Why Do Republicans Have So Little Dignity?

Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon is considered one of the great political novels of the last century, but it is also very puzzling. Why does Rubashov, the loyal old Bolshevik, confess to capital crimes he did not commit? He is not tortured; he knows (as do his interrogators) that the charges are absurd.

Keep reading... Show less

The Real Beneficiaries of Donald Trump's Fake Populism

The prospect of four years of Donald J. Trump’s nonstop rants about imaginary conspiracies against his daughter, wholesale slander against the judicial branch and attacks on the press as enemies of the people has caused some Americans to slip into a comforting form of denial. He will be a blip in our history, they say, because our formal institutions, and the American people, will ultimately prevail against a rogue disruptor.

Keep reading... Show less

Maybe This Is How Democracy Ends

The election of Donald Trump has triggered as much wonderment abroad as it has in the United States. David Runciman, a professor of politics at the University of Cambridge, has written in the London Review of Books a provocative reflection on the nature of democracy in the age of Trump: “Is this how democracy ends?” There is much to praise in his essay, including his heavy qualification that we really don’t know for sure if what we are seeing is the end phase of mature Western democracies since we do not have the appropriate historical precedents to be certain.

Keep reading... Show less

Andrew Sullivan Is Blinded by Fear of Popular Self-Government: Trump's Rise Was Fueled by Elitism, not 'Hyperdemocracy'

British expatriate writer Andrew Sullivan recently returned to the public eye with a piece that has aroused considerable comment, some of it reasonably on point, and some bloviatingly incoherent.

Keep reading... Show less

D.C. Insider: There's a Shadow Govt. Running the Country, and It's Not Up for Re-Election

Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo.

"The Martyrdom of Man" by Winwood Reade (1871)

Keep reading... Show less

Is War Good for the Economy?

The 1960s comedy show Laugh-In included an occasional sketch in which co-host Dan Rowan played a comic general whose tag-line was "war is good for business!" In an ironic echo of that skit, an April 27 Washington Post story delivers the same message: "A steep slowdown in defense spending tied to the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is undercutting the country's economic recovery, new government data released Friday revealed." An 11.5-percent annual drop in Pentagon spending resulted in slower growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) during the first quarter of 2013 than economists expected.

Keep reading... Show less

Former Republican: How the GOP Turned Into a Racket Ripping Off Vulnerable Americans

As with many religions, political parties have a tendency to start as a movement, transform into a business, and finally degenerate into a racket designed to fleece the yokels. One organization which has gone out of its way to illustrate this evolution is the Republican Party. And it has done so with a national scope and fundraising apparatus that would have made Jimmy Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker mute with awe.

By "Republican Party" I mean both the formal party and its extended apparat: talk radio and the Fox News empire, pressure groups like the Family Research Council, allegedly "educational" 501(c)3 organizations like the Heritage Foundation, direct mail outfits descended from the original Richard Viguerie mother ship, polling firms like Rasmussen's, and the Tea Party itself (the latter nevertheless asserts its non-affiliation with the GOP despite its having sponsored the Florida Republican presidential candidates' debate in 2011).

Keep reading... Show less

GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party

The following exceprt is reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of the Penguin Group (USA) Inc., from "The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless and the Middle Class Got Shafted," by Mike Lofgren. Copyright © 2012 by Mike Lofgren.

Keep reading... Show less

A Conservative Explains Why Right-Wingers Have No Compassion

 Although Mitt Romney used the word "conservative" 19 times in a short speech at the February 10, 2012, Conservative Political Action Conference, the audience he used this word to appeal to was not conservative by any traditional definition. It was right wing. Despite the common American practice of using "conservative" and "right wing" interchangeably, right wing is not a synonym for conservative and not even a true variant of conservatism - although the right wing will opportunistically borrow conservative themes as required.

Keep reading... Show less

Have the Super Wealthy Already Seceded from the United States?

It was in 1993 during Congressional deliberation over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican members of Congress who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. I distinctly remember something my colleague said: "The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris and Tokyo than with their own fellow American citizens."

Keep reading... Show less
@2022 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.