Make Use of Conservative and Evangelical Voices Against Trump

To the extent that they can, it is absolutely critical in light of the total subservience to Trump of Congressional Republicans that the Democrats make good use of the conservative and evangelical voices that have spoken in support of Trump’s impeachment.  This is their only opportunity to show that this not a partisan effort but rather a principled one.  

The recent op-ed pieces in “The American Conservative” and “Christianity Today” are a strong indictment of Trump.  Their readership may not be huge, but these are legitimate, well-respected publications.  There was also an op-ed piece in The New York Times written by a group of Republicans that have formed an organization, the Lincoln Project, dedicated to defeating Trump in 2020.  These expressions of conscience are all the more powerful because they know the disdain that they will be treated by most of their colleagues.

The Democratic leadership should hold a press conference together with these groups to press the point that this is not a partisan endeavor.  It may certainly be true that most Democrats have had it in for Trump from the beginning.  But that is not because he is a Republican, it is because he is in so many ways unfit to be President and has shown a lack of respect for his office and for the institutions of our democracy on an almost daily basis.  That is not partisanship, that is principle.

Some Republican Senators Have Crossed a Line and Disqualified Themselves as Impeachment Jurors

In an impeachment, the Senate’s role is to sit in judgment and vote either to convict or acquit the person charged.  The Senators are the jury.  No Senator is appointed to play the role of defense counsel.  That role is undertaken by the President’s lawyers.  

As jurors, when the impeachment trial begins, the Senators swear an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Now, no one expects any Senator, certainly not in the current environment, to be impartial when sitting in judgment of President Trump.  However, there is a difference between Senators prejudging the case and Senators meeting with top White House aides, as reported recently in The New York Times, to discuss the strategy to be used for the impeachment trial.

That crosses the line between being a juror and being part of the defense team.  Their action flouts all pretense of impartiality.

There is no precedent for this.  In Nixon’s impeachment, the Republican leadership did not strategize with the White House; they (Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Rhodes) went to the White House to tell Nixon that he faced near-certain impeachment because of eroding support among Republicans.  As for Clinton, I could find no indication on the internet that Democratic Senators met with him to strategize his impeachment trial.

I would therefore argue that when the Senators are sworn in as jurors by the Chief Justice, the House managers of the impeachment should raise an objection with the Chief Justice that because of their strategizing with White House officials regarding the impeachment trial, such Senators should be barred from voting. They have disqualified themselves.  Who are they? Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham.  Mind you, a majority of the Senate can overrule such a ruling by the Chief Justice; but McConnell has only 2 votes to spare.

Then there’s majority leader Senator McConnell.  He recently stated that he’s “taking his cue” from the White House on how to run the impeachment trial.  "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel." He made clear he would do everything in his power to quickly acquit the president.” 

That without question also crosses the line.  He has stated he’s going to be talking to the Democratic leader and others, but if the bottom line is what the White House wants, those other conversations make no difference.  By running the trial the way Trump wants it run, he is abandoning all appearance of independence and impartiality.  The trial must be set up to get at the truth.

Removal of these senators from the Senate jury would not likely change the result of the trial.  With 95 senators voting, 16 Republican senators would still have to vote for impeachment, assuming a solid Democratic voting bloc.  But their removal may embolden enough Republicans to vote for impeachment to at least provide a simple majority, if not the required 2/3 majority to convict.  A bi-partisan majority in favor of impeachment would gravely weaken Trump in the 2020 election.

And it would send a very clear message that even in politics, some actions are beyond the pale.  We have lost that faith under Trump.  It needs to be reasserted.

The Clear Case for Trump’s Impeachment

There has been so much information gathered regarding Trump’s abuse of power that sometime it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.  But it is critically important to keep things simple and clear.  Let’s review the facts.

1.  The Main Piece of Evidence:

    Trump is on record as having said to the Ukraine president, when asked about the promised military aid, “I would like you to do us a favor though” and went on to mention his desire to have the Biden’s investigated.  This is not hearsay, this is not surmise, this is from the horse’s mouth.

       

     Republicans say that Trump did not say that the investigations were a condition to getting the aid.  How disingenuous.  If someone asks you for something, and you respond by asking them for a favor, it is understood that getting what they want is conditional on the favor being granted.  Especially in this case since, contrary to the White House’ early assertions, the Ukraine government was aware that the military aid had been put on hold prior to the telephone call.

     Republicans further say that the aid was ultimately provided without Ukraine investigating.  Yes, but the aid was released after Trump was informed of the whistleblower complaint and in response to bipartisan pressure from Congress.  So the fact that the aid was provided without the investigations taking place is not an exculpatory event. 

2.  The Supporting Evidence:

     There is ample evidence, both from career diplomats and from Trump appointees, that it was common knowledge that the Ukraine’s getting the aid and having a meeting with Trump were conditioned on them investigating the Biden’s.  Not just investigating them, but publicly stating that they were investigating them for corruption.

3.  The Legal Justification:

     Even Prof. Jonathan Turley, the Republican-requested expert, stated in his testimony that “the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”   It is not surprising then that he also stated that the July 25 call was “anything but perfect” and that Congress has a legitimate reason to scrutinize it.

Thus, given that we have direct evidence in the July 25 call that Trump pushed the Biden investigation and that he positioned it as a favor he was requesting in response to the inquiry regarding the withheld military aid, given all the supporting evidence that it was commonly felt that the aid and the investigations were connected, and given that the legal scholars agreed that, if proven, such abuse of power would constitute an impeachable offense, there is no reason not to proceed with impeachment articles.

Not to be forgotten, however, is Trump’s obstruction of justice.  Not only did he attempt to prohibit any Federal employee from testifying before the House Intelligence committee, although a number did so regardless.   But there is clear evidence from the Mueller report that he attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation in numerous ways.  The House has unfortunately determined not to go there and limit it’s obstruction charge to obstructing the House in its legitimate investigation. 

Last week’s testimony by legal scholars regarding whether the crimes Trump is accused of warrant impeachment and whether sufficient evidence has been gathered left the media at least pondering whether Democrats should wait, should pursue enforcement of subpoenas in the courts, in order to obtain evidence from key players whom Trump has forbidden to testify.

While it would be great to have that testimony, there is no time to pursue a lengthy court process to obtain it given that we are only a year away from the next presidential election. By the time all the appeals would be over, the election would have occurred.  And one must remember, the only reason why that testimony has not been available is because Trump has forbidden it.  It has in most cases been requested by House Democrats.

Trump has clearly abused the power of his office and for the sake of our democracy must be impeached.  That the Senate will acquit is a foregone conclusion, but because it is a foregone conclusion, the fact will have little resonance with the public beyond his fervent base.

The Ongoing Toxic Effect of Slavery

There are many reasons why our country is dysfunctional today on so many levels.  Most have to do with the nature of our culture, the “me” perspective, and the insecurity that becomes part of our psyche during our formative years and growing up.

But there is another factor which I think has a major impact on our political life … the ongoing toxic effect of slavery.  And I’m not just talking about the continuing racism that is prevalent in the United States, although it is related to that.

When our country was founded, a deal was brokered, despite the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence, known as the “3/5 compromise.”  Under that agreement, slaves were accepted in the slaves states as a fact of life and were counted in the census as 3/5 of a person.  And so although they were slaves, not citizens, and had no rights, they increased significantly the South’s representation in the House of Representatives.

Ultimately, of course, the compromise led to the Civil War.  After the Civil War, there was never a discussion or reconciliation regarding slavery.  Reconstruction, which was to give slaves land and status, was promoted by a Republican-controlled Congress but poorly conceived.  Regardless, the effort ended quickly under President Andrew Johnson (D) and the white southern power structure maintained their old ways through the establishment of Jim Crow laws.

For the next 100 years, southern Democrats, while supporting the Democratic Party agenda in many ways, demanded a price, which was the continued debasement of African-Americans.  This unholy alliance fell apart when Johnson pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws through in the mid-1960s.  One should note that both of these measures were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans; the votes against were primarily from the South; the votes in the Senate were 73-27 and 78-18 respectively. 

The former Democrats later switched to Republican under Nixon’s Southern strategy and the South became Red.  Since that time, the Republican party, which had become traditionally conservative over the years, added a new twist in that they now, dependent on southern support, opposed measures to help the poor, who were thought of as being overwhelmingly black.  Bush II sought to change that with his compassionate conservatism, but he didn’t get very far.

The Tea Party within the Republican Party was founded in February 2009, just one month after Barack Obama took office as President.  Although the rallying cry was fiscal conservatism, the real bone was clear.  It was the perceived threat of African-Americans to the white middle-class, not just in the south, but now in the north too as the country suffered from a major recession.

These people had a fanatical energy.  And so John Boehner, then Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, decided to use them rather than fight them.  That empowering of the Tea Party ultimately led to Trump winning the Republican nomination for President in 2016 and winning the election.

And the fanaticism and loyalty of that base is what has given Trump his power to change the Republican party from a conservative party to an authoritarian, nativistic party, full of hate and anger.  Which has brought forth the same kind of energy in the Democratic Party base.  The combination of which has resulted in an almost total erosion of civility in political discourse and a weakening of American democracy.

Can the country be brought back to a place of reason and civility, an agreement to disagree?  Only time will tell, but the present does not bode well for the future.  In April 2019, I wrote a post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism.”  For our country to heal these deep divisions that we see, this must happen.  But I fear it will not, I fear it is too late.

What About Protecting Children?

During the past year, we have seen the #MeToo movement bring public awareness and public acknowledgement of the degradation suffered by countless women at the hands of countless men.  And for those men who were called out who were in positions of power, many of them have fallen.  Some have even been the subject of criminal action.

This was something which was long overdue.  No human being should be treated in this way.  And so women now join the list of people who are not just protected by law, but because they feel comfortable coming forward, are empowered to make use of those protections.

There remains, however, one significant category of person who, while protected by the law, is virtually unprotected in reality.  Both because they have no voice and because the injury they sustain is not acknowledged by society … children who are subject to sustained psychological abuse in their homes.    

We are slowly becoming sensitive to the bullying children are subject to in school and the damage caused by such bullying, including even suicide.  Although there are many adults, especially the parents of bullies, who respond, “Children will be children,” and fault the victim for overreacting.  

We have not, however, acknowledged the bullying and other forms of psychological abuse that children suffer at home and the terrible and lasting damage this does to them.  Why?  

The American Academy of Pediatrics defines emotional and psychological abuse as exposing “a child frequently and repeatedly to behaviors that impact his or her psychological well-being, including blaming, threatening, yelling at, belittling, humiliating, name calling, pointing out faults, withholding emotional support and affection, and ignoring a child.”  Shockingly, we see examples of this in public frequently, at which point I cringe; imagine the frequency behind the closed doors of the home.  

Pediatricians are required by law in many jurisdictions to report evidence of abuse to the authorities, including psychological abuse.  But despite their responsibility, doctors underreport evidence of physical abuse as well as psychological abuse.  Most often reported are cases of neglect.  

Why don’t they report?  One of the reasons why are “accepted cultural practices.”  Unfortunately, the list in the AAP definition above are all things which are pretty much accepted cultural practices by parents, especially if a child is “difficult.” Another is that doctors are less likely to report abuse when they have a positive relationship with the family.  

The generally accepted norm by both doctors and the public is that such things are going to occur in the home.  As with bullies, the reaction is that parents will be parents.  They have to have a free hand in raising their children.  They can’t be micro-managed.    Parents don’t intentionally harm their children.  And so children are not protected.

Perhaps the worst example of child psychological abuse unrelated to sexual abuse or other forms of physical abuse is the abuse suffered by children of a parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Narcs).  This rather benign sounding psychological disorder is actually very malignant.  

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, this is a sociopath who is dangerous to themselves and others:  1) has significant impairments in personality function such as exaggerated self-appraisal and requires excessive admiration to support self-esteem; 2) impairment in interpersonal function such as a lack of empathy; relationships are largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem; little genuine interest in others; exploits others for personal gain; 3) pathological personality traits such as antagonism and grandiosity, believing one is better than others; condescending, arrogant, haughty; excessive attempts to attract the attention of others.  

Such parents see children as objects who they use to satisfy their needs, robbing them of all sense of self and self-esteem.  They have and show no care or love for their children.  The result is major damage to a child’s psyche.

Children of course, as opposed to adult women, do not have a voice vis a vis adults.  They are totally dependent on their parents for their welfare.  When asked, not only are children ashamed that they have received such abuse, but they know what will happen if they report on their parents.  Also every child wants desperately to believe that they are loved by their parents.  For all these reasons, they often hide the truth.

The only other person in a position to speak for a child is a relative or neighbor who is well-acquainted with the family dynamic.  However, these people will also usually not say anything for the same reasons as doctors … accepted cultural practices and closeness to the family.  There is one other.  If the parent is a Narc, close relatives or friends are typically enablers.  They have been brought into the Narc’s web of influence through various means and so see the Narc as a good person, not someone who is destroying their child.

Where does that leave the child victim?  Totally defenseless.

Why is this such a important topic?  If one cares about human beings, clearly one wants to prevent the psychic destruction of people, certainly children.  But beyond the individual, there are pressing social reasons to change this dynamic.  All of the dysfunction we see in the world … and it is everywhere … in the family, in the workplace, in the nation is a result of the suffering and insecurity that people experience as children.  (See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity,”  and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”)  

If we truly want to make this world a better place for our children, then we must start by protecting our children.  The only way out of this terrible dynamic is to bring the subject of child psychological abuse out into the open.  It can no longer be a taboo subject.  Just like one never used to talk or hear about incest until a prominent person (a former Miss America) came out and told her story, prominent people need to come out and tell their story of being victims of child psychological abuse.

When people feel it is ok to talk about this subject, whether regarding their own experience or that of others, they will be empowered to free themselves of the suffering caused by denial by speaking the truth.  Then, hopefully, doctors, relatives, and friends will come to the rescue of children.  Adults who were victims as children will speak the truth.  We will be amazed at the prevalence of this tragedy.  Millions of children will be freed from their prison of suffering and countless adults will begin healing their trauma.

Have You No Shame?

During the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, Senator Joe McCarthy (R) was finally stopped by the question of Joseph Welch, attorney for the Army.  Welch said, “At long last, sir, have you left no sense of decency?”  The quote is often paraphrased as, “Have you no shame?”

After watching the actions of Congressional Republicans since Trump took office, but especially since the whistle-blower complaint, the White House release of a “reconstructed” transcript of Trump’s Ukraine phone call, and the many corroborating witnesses both regarding the call itself but more importantly about Trump’s insistence that the Ukraine commit to investigating Hunter Biden as a condition to releasing security aid funds that had been allocated by Congress, I would say to them, “Sirs, have you left no shame?”

Congressmen and Senators take an oath of office in which they commit to supporting and defending the Constitution.  Their oath is not to defend the President, their political party, or anything else.  They represent many constituencies but their oath is simply to support and defend the Constitution.

Since Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party through the fervent loyalty of his base, Republicans in Congress have become a craven lot, except on foreign policy matters.  How have they conducted themselves during the questioning of Trump’s abuse of office?  Have they defended the Constitution?

The Constitution prohibits government officials from receiving anything of value from foreign governments without the consent of Congress.  Knowingly receiving the value of Russian interference in the 2016 election would be a violation of this clause and was thus a key part of the Mueller investigation.  Receiving election aid in the form of Ukraine investigations of political rivals would also be an example of receiving something of value.  The obstructing justice charges don’t concern this Constitutional clause but concern a violation of Federal law and thus would be impeachable.

Already with the Mueller Report, despite all the evidence of Russian contact and knowledge that Russia was interfering in the election (including his infamous public request to the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails and publish them) and of obstruction of justice, they supported Trump’s view that he had been shown to do no wrong, and that by not indicting him, Mueller had exonerated him.  

Never mind that’s not what the report said, that’s how Trump and they interpreted it, aided and abetted by A.G. Barr’s summary.  Just recently, we learned that testimony at the trial of Roger Stone showed that Trump spoke directly to Stone during the campaign about WikiLeaks possible disclosure of Democratic emails obtained by Russia, despite his having said in written testimony that he remembered no such conversation.  If not legal collusion, this certainly smells like an impeachable offense.

Regarding the June telephone call with the President of the Ukraine, despite the background and Trump explicitly asking for a favor,  they still say Trump did no wrong.  When Lt Col. Vindman who was on the call and thus had direct knowledge said that the “transcript” omitted an important reference to the Bidens and other desired investigations, they cast aspersions on him and discounted his testimony.

When one career diplomat after another came forward and testified under oath that the President was holding foreign policy hostage to personal political gain, their response has been that this is all hearsay.  No one heard this from the mouth of the President.  

The last statement is true, but when you have so much evidence regarding the President’s policy from various sources and stemming largely from his own personal lawyer, Giuliani, the evidence cannot be simply disregarded because it is hearsay.  Especially when those with direct knowledge of the President’s position have been prevented from testifying by the President’s edict.  And few with direct knowledge who have testified, such as Lt. Col. Vindman, have been vilified.

Republicans point to the fact that the President told several people that there was no quid pro quo.  Given that this President lies constantly, even when there’s something real at risk, his statements clearly cannot be accepted at face value.

Except for a single utterance by Senator Romney regarding this matter, no Republican has even ventured tentative support for the idea that perhaps this might be an impeachable offense and should be looked into.  The one representative who did reversed himself when it came to a vote in the House.

Senators and Representatives fume about Trump’s foreign policy actions in the Middle East, how harmful they are to the country’s interests.   Here they stand up to Trump.  But since they otherwise approve of his policies, they apparently see no “duty to country” reason for opposing him.  

They don’t see that a man like Trump at the helm of this country is dangerous.  And that he has over and over again abused the power of his office.  He has even clearly stated that the Constitution lets him “do whatever he wants,” and he referred to the Constitution’s “phony” emoluments clause.

Why does Trump have such power over members of the House and especially the Senate, whose members are traditionally more independent?  Because they all want to be reelected … that is clearly their main imperative, not service to the country … and his control over the party’s base is so solid that they dare not buck him or else they know they’ll find themselves with a primary challenger to Trump’s liking.

The Need for Mass Outrage, Civil Disobedience

There was an opinion piece in The New York Times recently that criticized President Obama for wagging his finger at the younger generation who get off on being judgmental and insist on purity.  “That’s not activism.  That’s not bringing about change,  If all you’re doing is casting stones, that probably won’t get you far.”  The opinion writer was very offended and criticized the older generation’s way of doing things.  She embraced the power of social media.

This is a hard one. We, young and old liberals/progressives, want to effect change. That's the bottom line. The question is how best to get there. 

There are situations where a zero tolerance approach is appropriate, where we should express our outrage, en masse. In the street, not just on your screen.  Sometimes, enough people expressing outrage can by its own power effect change, either by toppling those in power or having those in power accept change. 

More frequently though, the world is so complex and resistance to change so strong that even masses expressing outrage in public protest will not in and of itself effect change. But that mass expression of outrage is still important, for only then can people with access to power follow up by arguing for change, at least incremental. 

Indeed, I would argue that we need more mass expressions of outrage, such as we had against the Vietnam War.  And it can’t be just once and done.  There must be an extended series of protests.  Those in power must see that the opposition has staying power; that they haven’t spent all their energy on one demonstration and then it’s back to business as unusual.

Now when it comes to negotiating with those in power, you have the best chance of success when they don’t have their backs up.  The problem with many young progressives and some older ones too is that they don't just state the facts, they don’t just argue, they bully and are full of hatred. 

That is not the way to influence people. A good example of this is Rep. Ilhan Omar. I agree with much of what she says, but as I've said in previous posts, she often says it in a way which is counter-productive. She is her own worst enemy, in terms of being effectual. 

Obama's point was not to castigate those who argue for change. His point was that one needs to do so in a way that will effectuate change. Sometimes, perhaps often, that will require compromise. And that should not be a dirty word. You do not sell out if you compromise. Rather, if you insist on purity, you will almost never effect change and thus truly betray your cause.