How We Got Here

by Nomad

---

Trump's Acquittal: The Ultimate Triumph of the Imperial Presidency

by Nomad

In 1973, in the throes of the Nixon scandal, author Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. published a book entitled "The Imperial Presidency." in that book, he warned that the office of president of the United States had drifted far from the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Less of a servant of the people and into a king without the actual title. He argued that a presidency becomes imperial when it relies on powers well outside those allowed by the Constitution of the United States.

Notes on Intolerance and Conformity from a Shining City on the Hill

by Nomad

A Turkish/Canadian friend of mine- we can call him Metin- told me that he was sitting on the grass in a seaside park recently. He was speaking English to a friend. It was another fine day in Izmir.
However, much to Metin's dismay, a woman he had never met before interrupted his chat and told him "You are in Turkey. Speak Turkish!"

It literally took his breath away, he later said. It was especially shocking that such a thing would happen in a comparatively liberal, laid-back city like Izmir.

Backlash from the Past: One Angry Ex-Reagan Supporter Turns Her Back on the GOP

by Nomad

Accountability and the Employee of the People

by Nomad

An event some 35 years ago underscores a vital question that presidents and their staff too often ignore. The question of accountability.

Press Conference

On Oct. 15, 1982, at a White House press briefing, journalist Lester Kinsolving asked Reagan's Deputy Press Secretary Larry Speakes a simple question.
Had he heard the news about a new disease that doctors had detected among the gay community?

In fact, the initial detection of some kind of lethal pathogen was not a secret. On 5 June 1981, more than a year before that press conference, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly (MMWR) made a reference to five cases of an unusual form pneumonia in Los Angeles.

Even as late and October 1982, there still might have been means to control the spread. Warnings might have been issued. Medical experts could have been mobilized to determine how to prevent the spread or offer theories at the very least.
However, as we all know, that is not what happened.

The video below records that historic moment when a health crisis first emerged as a political issue.

Government for Sale: An Interesting Discovery in the CIA Files on Donald Trump

by Nomad

Newly-released CIA files offer us a bitter look back at what we used to laugh at decades ago. A satirical op-ed piece is a timely reminder of how far we have come along the path to corporatocracy. And under Trump, it's likely to get a lot worse. 

When I heard the news that the CIA had just uploaded around 13 million formerly classified documents, I did what any inquisitive blogger would do. I hastily typed in Donald Trump's name in the site's search engine. What I found was, to put it mildly, not what I was expecting.
No, nothing scandalous, so don't get too excited. There is one rather peculiar find to report.

Among a few other items, there's a photocopied news clipping of a June 1985 article by the then-editor of the monthly, Harper's Magazine, Lewis Lapham.
This article's presence in the CIA file is very likely to do a very brief mention of the CIA head at the time, Bill Casey. As for the Trump reference, you'll have to be a little patient.

The piece itself is a tongue-in-cheek op-ed entitled "Putting the Government Up for Sale: Deals to Ponder." The crux of the article is pretty basic and is summed up in the first paragraph.

"Sooner or later, it will occur to somebody in the Reagan administration to put the federal government up for sale in a patriotic series of leveraged buy-outs. The deficit and the national debt would vanish as if in magician's smoke. The Dow Jones stock averages would gain 4000 points and everybody lucky enough to command the necessary lines of credit and political patronage would make a killing."

Why America's Love Affair with Rule-Breaking Leaders Provided an Open Door for Trump

by Nomad

A recent poll revealed an interesting and somewhat disturbing trend in politics. When it comes to leadership, nearly half of the country would be happy with a president that breaks rules. And guess whose supporters overwhelming uphold that idea that rules and laws are for losers? 

Breaking Rules for the Greater Good

Yesterday, I stumbled across some interesting bit of information from one of the thousand of polls. 

According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, nearly half of Americans (45%) think that because things in the US have gone so far off the rails, the nation needs a leader who's willing to break some rules to put things in order. Slightly more than half of the respondents (51%) disagreed.  

If you think about it, it's really a frightening idea.

But what does it mean "to break the rules"? Does this mean voters think a leader must break laws too? Since laws are rules, that is the implication. And because the Constitution is the foundation of legal powers of the government, does it mean that half of the country would elect a leader that would violate the Constitution? 

And since the Supreme Court is the official final arbitrator of how the Constitution is applied, does this mean that 45% of the nation believes a president should listen to the high court decisions only when he agrees with it? Suddenly the entire question of the rule of law is called into question. All of our international treaties and nation-to-nation relationships are left to the whims of a leader who likes to shake things up and be "unpredictable." 

Remember When Reagan Nominated an Anti-Labor Lobbyist of a Neo-Nazi, Pro-KKK Propaganda Machine?

by Nomad

Early in Reagan's first term, the administration suffered a minor setback with one of its nominations. The problem? The nominee's work with an organization that had long been a propaganda machine for the most extreme right wing and dangerous organizations.

Beware The Ides of March

On 30 March 1981, two events in Washington occurred: one  of them stunned the nation. The other event was completely overshadowed the other and is largely forgotten today.

On that rainy afternoon, at about 2:30. President Reagan was leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington. Waving to the small crowd, the president stepped out onto the sidewalk on his way to his limo. Before he got there, an attempt was made on his life. 

Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by demented attacker John Hinckley, Jr.

The FBI said the weapon was a Saturday Night Special that Hinckley purchased last October for about $25 in a pawn shop in Dallas - the city where President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

It was not immediately apparent how seriously Reagan's injuries were.

Only a few days before the assassination attempt, vice president George H. W. Bush received the assignment of running crisis management in case of emergency.
On that day, Bush was out of Washington, in Ft. Worth/Dallas as it turned out. Believing that the president had escaped intact, Bush flew on to make a speech in Austin.

With the vice president on his way back, the Secretary of State  Alexander Haig, in an effort, to calm things down told reporters that he was in control.  

As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the vice president and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.

As a war hawk, Haig's declaration sent a shiver down the spines of a lot of people. With his long military history in wars like Korea, Vietnam and as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe commanding all U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, his words should have been a comfort.

The world held its breath.

Reagan's hawkish comments about the Soviet Union had some world leaders uneasy and with this attempt on his life, nobody was ready to predict the US reaction.

An Hour Earlier

Less than an hour before the attempt on the president' life, something far less earth-shaking had happened. As was expected, the White House spokesman announced the nominations for many of the second-tier positions in various agencies.

Here's Why Mitch McConnell's Blanket Rejection of all SCOTUS Nominees is such a Dangerous Gamble

by Nomad

The decision by Senate Majority Leader McConnell to block each and every nominee submitted by President Obama could be a very dangerous misjudgment with devastating consequences in November. 

Leader of the Majority in the Senate Mitch McConnell's announcement to stall any SCOTUS candidate President Obama put forward came hours after the news of Justice Scalia's death. McConnell claimed that the matter could not too important to be decided in an election year.

Under McConnell's order, anybody nominated by President Barack will not succeed Justice Antonin Scalia. The confirmation process will be stalled until nearly a year from now after a new president is sworn in. As reported by USAToday, Mcconnell said:

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." 

Democrats pointed out that the American people already had a voice in the selection. It was called the Senate. Their representatives in Congress- democratically-elected- have been designated by the Constitution to act as a Vox populi. Surely McConnell knows his own job description.

Candidate Trump and the Last Hurrah of the White Republican Voter

by Nomad

The GOP has long ignored the warnings and continued to court a shrinking audience of angry white voters. Indeed, his rise to the top of the Republican party may just spell the end of hopes for ever winning presidential elections.

Writing for the website Salon, Heather "Digby" Parton has analyzed the present confused political situation in an op-ed piece and came to interesting conclusions about what's really going on. 

Pointing out that Obama won reelection by getting the smallest share of white voters of any presidential candidate in history, Parton suggests that this is a sign of the marginalization of the white vote. And that's something that's  very likely to continue whether Republican candidates recognize it or not. 

Ideological Reinforcement of Like-Minded People

The Republican establishment may think that simply by im­prov­ing turnout they can take back the White House. With Trump at the helm, there is not much chance for much-needed reform of the GOP agenda. In short, Trump is taking the party to a place where it will not survive. 

Not a party for the entire country but a party with a country club mentality with an ever-shrinking membership.

Reflections on the Quiet American Hero, Jimmy Carter

by Nomad

It's time to give credit where credit is long due. A look back at the remarkable retirement of Jimmy Carter, the humanitarian.

Few Presidents have had a more successful post-presidency than Jimmy Carter. Some have said he has re-invented the definition of what it means to be a former US president. 

In a world of politics, driven mad with ego and ambition, Carter has stood as a model of sacrifice and dedication to the service of his fellow human being. 

The Surprising Connections You Might Not Know Between Religion and Income Inequality

by Nomad

Religion may be the "opiate of the masses" but there's another side to this story and it's not pretty. If religion is indeed a drug, then who are the drug dealers? This post looks at the interesting connections between the ruling class, religiosity, and inequality.

Rich People, Poor People, and Religion

A recent study in the Social Science Quarterly reaches some interesting and unexpected conclusions about the relationship between income inequality and the rise of religion.

The authors of  the article Economic Inequality, Relative Power, and Religiosity analyzed countries around the world the levels of income equality and the level of religiosity over a two-decade span. Their conclusions are worth a closer look. 

Let's start by defining the terms. What exactly is religiosity anyway? The sociological term "religiosity" can be considered the overall religiousness of a given culture or nation or group. In other words, the degree in which religion affects our day-to-day life. 

In the study, there were twelve benchmarks, from the percentage of people who felt that religion played an important factor in their lives to a percentage of people who took time to pray, those that believed in Hell and sin and the number of people that believed in a Divine power. This evidence was matched with the levels of income inequality in the same countries.

Some of the findings in the study were less than surprising. For example, the authors found that Muslim countries were considerably more religious than other religious societies, and Catholic and Orthodox societies were more religious than Protestant ones. The lowest religiosity was found among Communist or formerly Communist countries.
Nothing shocking there.

The Surprising Thing

Other things they found confirmed what many of us tend to believe anyway. The study determined, for instance, that there is a very strong relationship between how economically developed a country is and its religiosity: less developed countries are significantly more religious.

Unitary Executive Theory: How the GOP in Congress is Destroying Cheney's Life Work

 by Nomad

Former vice president Cheney must be watching in dismay as the Republicans in Congress are tearing apart a doctrine that he has spent his whole life promoting.

The now-infamous letter of the 47 Senators  may not be treasonous although some on the Left may think so. The  unsolicited advice to the Iranians may not be a violation of the Logan Act and some lawyers might disagreed.

Nevertheless, in one aspect, there is something distinctly peculiar about what Congress did and has been doing since President Obama took office.

This new activism is a reversal of policy that has been the long standing hallmark of conservative principles. That principle is known as the Unitary Executive Theory and one of its chief promoters has always been former Vice president Dick Cheney.

According to this doctrine, all executive authority must be in the President’s hands, "without exception." The President and other members of the executive branch have special rights and privileges that come with the office. And the legislative branch, according to the proponents, has no authority to question presidential power. The president as the head of state and  that preeminence required Congress to recognize its lesser position.

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two part series we discussed the origins of the present problem between the black community and law enforcement. Reagan's get-tough on crime was based on a theory that came with some direct warnings about the potential for discrimination. The president chose to ignore them.

Reagan's anti-crime crusade led to giving law enforcement more freedom to do their job. At least that was how it was portrayed in conservative circles at the time. That policy was called "pro-active policing." 

Problems with Pro-Active Policing
An  ultra-conservative American libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute, paints a very different picture of the policy today. A site run by that organization, which attempts to highlight police misconduct, describes pro-active policing as..

the use of nearly autonomous elite police units that are trained to be more aggressive than regular officers as a response to gang and drug related violence by targeting people they suspect of being criminals before they commit crimes. These units are encouraged to use whatever tactics they can get away with in order to get results, those results being a high arrest rate.

Like the later preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush era, it is easy to see in retrospect how easily pro-active policing could be abused. The danger of this practice was that notion that police should be responsible for preventing crime before it happens. How is that even possible? 

Well, one description might remind you of the sci-fi film "Minority Report"

In proactive policing, law enforcement uses data and analyzes patterns to understand the nature of a problem. Officers devise strategies and tactics to prevent or mitigate future harm. They evaluate results and revise practices to improve policing. Departments may combine an array of data with street intelligence and crime analysis to produce better assessments about what might happen next if they take various actions.

This high tech description however tends to gloss over the more controversial aspect, a highly visible street presence which is intended to intimidate criminals before they commit crimes.  The more intimidating, the better.

Ironically, what developed over time was a gang mentality of thugs within the police force.

These teams tend to be close-knit and insular, trained to use highly aggressive tactics with very little oversight, and taught to think and act like the gang members and drug dealers they investigate while under cover.

In other words, the balance between the lawless and the lawful was so blurred that it was difficult to see which element was the greater threat to the community. The police force- especially when made up of white officers- took all of the appearances (as well as the mentality) of an occupying military.  

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 1/2

by Nomad

With all the protests around the country against abusive law enforcement, it is a good time to ask how we as a country got into this situation. Is it simply a matter of racism permeating police departments or does it go deeper?

With all of the safeguards hard-wired into the Constitution, how could we have allowed it to happen?

A Simple Question of Trust

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.    Frederick Douglas

There's been a lot of superficial analysis about the reasons for the nationwide protests in the wake of the Brown and Garner cases. The fact that US law enforcement can literally get away with murdering unarmed citizens in front of witnesses has shocked the nation. 

(In fact this phenomenon has been going on for decades and if anything, the patience of the black community is the truly surprising aspect.) 

Racism in the country's police departments has been blamed. A broken-down justice system has also been pointed to. In fact, it's all of those things but there's a deeper problem as well:  A lack of trust in the law enforcement agencies by the black and minority communities. 

This lack of trust has been further reinforced by a lack of credibility of the oversight process after possible violations have occurred.

It's not something that should be under-estimated. Trust is the glue that holds the entire justice system together. Without trust, the entire structure of law and order collapses pretty quickly. Now America has begun to question whether we might not have bestowed too much trust in law enforcement.  

Every time a case of police brutality goes unpunished, it becomes a double failure for the entire justice system. Firstly, from the offense itself and secondly, by the damage it does to public trust.

Bust: How Republicans Lost the War on Drugs 3/5

by Nomad

In past installments in this series on America's war on drugs, we examined Nixon and Ford. Now we turn to the Democratic president Jimmy Carter.
Deeply entrenched distrust for the president within the CIA would prove to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Part 3. Where the Rational Met Reality

Carter's Way

The 70s were a time of reformation after the hectic and often frightening social shakeups of the 60s. Watergate and the subsequent Church Senate Committee Investigations had opened up the heart of the political system and most Americans were appalled at the grimy business of running the country and managing the world.

What was needed was a complete overhaul starting at the top. Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian, peanut farmer with the down-home Georgian accent seemed to be the style of leadership the country demanded.
And so in 1976, against all expectations, The Waltons moved into the White House.

The white middle class conservative values of "dominant social order" were being re-evaluated, questioned and challenged in a variety of ways.

The extreme conservative opinion, typified by white frustration, tainted with bigotry and, simplistic, backward views of the world,  was being mocked weekly on television shows like All in the Family and other programs. It is no surprise then that the failed drug policy should once again come under greater scrutiny.

In some ways, President Carter did, in fact, pick up where President Ford had left off. And as we mentioned in the previous post, that new direction had already been sabotaged. While marijuana was now being considered harmless and non-addictive, cocaine was added to the same category. (We should take a closer look at the possible reason for this.) In any case, this coupling, for whatever reasons, proved to be a major blunder.

Both, under President Ford's directive, were now to receive far less attention from law enforcement. Meanwhile the focus was concentrated on the heroin trade. 

Progress combating the illegal import of heroin too was hampered. That had much to do with the CIA and its antagonism toward Carter and all he represented. 

It was common knowledge that high level intelligence officials in the agency had no great love for Carter. Perhaps it was to be expected since President Carter had campaigned as an outsider who was coming to Washington to clean the mess that the Church Committee had revealed.

America's War on Illegal Drugs: The Shocking Scope of the Failure

by Nomad

If the War on Drugs has been a failure, it's time to ask what exactly went wrong. That's a question we will be taking a closer look at next week.
Firstly, in this post, we will look at the scale of the problem.

The noted economist, Milton Friedman, once remarked:

I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.

Of course, Friedman ignores the very serious consequences of drug addiction, such as wasted lives and destroyed families, the increase in crime and poverty. and generations of young people who might have contributed to society being turned into veritable zombies. Doing nothing, no matter what Uncle Milt might thing is not an viable option. In that light, Friedman's notions strikes one as being cold and pitiless.  

Still there is a tiny kernel of truth buried in the idea.   

If wars are ever moral in any sense, the War on Drugs was depicted in its opening salvos, as a battle of good against the evils of addiction. In fighting this particular war, however, one of the problems was understanding exactly who the enemy was and who were its victims.

Of course, it was clear something had to be done. However, at some point after President Nixon officially kicked off the War on Drugs in 1971, the anti-drug policy jumped the tracks and then coasted along with nobody at the wheel.

Today  after four decades of fighting, the drug war has, at least according to one source,  cost the taxpayers over $1 trillion dollars. 

The Key to Happiness and the Death of the American Dream

by Nomad

A recent study on happiness can tell us why Americans are so angry with Washington. It has, the study suggests, been a long time coming.

According to a study highlighted in Psychology Today, researchers from University College London have discovered, after studying more than 18,000 people from all over the world, what really makes people happy. One key factor, they concluded, comes down to what we expect and how strongly we expect it. They were even able to derive an equation to predict the factors that created happiness.

Dr. Robb Rutledge, a cognitive and computational neuroscientist and lead author of the study,

“Life is full of expectations — it would be difficult to make good decisions without knowing, for example, which restaurant you like better. It is often said that you will be happier if your expectations are lower. We find that there is some truth to this: lower expectations make it more likely that an outcome will exceed those expectations and have a positive impact on happiness

But, according to Rutlege, that's only half of the story. Sometimes happiness comes solely from the expectation itself. When some people play the lottery, the expectation of winning and the plans of what they would do with the winnings is more than enough to keep people playing week after week. This is true when those expectations are known to be false or based on fantasy.

Using MRI scans, the researchers were even able to track the place in the brain where our happiness originates. They found that setting expectations and receiving the pay off trigger a release of a the pleasure hormone, dopamine, which excited those areas of the brain.

So, the researchers seem to suggest that having high hopes is one way to achieve short term happiness but having realistic expectations is more important to long term happiness. 

The American Dream and the Happiness of Fantasy

The findings on the surface might seem a little obvious. At least the results of the study fits pretty squarely with conventional wisdom about keeping your expectations low.

However, on a social and political level, there are some interesting implications. 
There are things that Americans have tended to believe to the core. One of those articles of faith is the American Dream. Some have argued that that dream is dead. The expectation that life will forever improve, that social mobility is possible if only one works harder and that you too can rise out of poverty by virtue of your ambition and your intelligence, all that is now forever lost. 

If the American Dream is truly dead, then America is going to be a particularly unhappy place to live. Especially for the middle class. The poor have learned from grim experience to expect less and many have been forced to rely on social programs. The rich tend to have their expectations met and can use the system to guarantee it. However, it is the middle class that will not so easily adjust to the downgrading of our dreams.

The Reagan Quote: Setting the Record Straight

by Nomad

Buried in the past post was a quote by Reagan and I think it is worth highlighting. It's a quote that many on the Right have used in a number of way unrelated to the subject that Reagan was referring to.
I made this meme to set the record straight.

If a right wing troll should ever challenge you to cite you sources, send him to this transcription of Reagan's Labor Day Speech at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey on September 1, 1980.

A Nation Adrift: Studies Confirm The Slow Sinking of the US Middle Class

by Nomad

Due to economic policies of going back 30 years, studies show, the American middle-class is withering on the vine. While the US may still be the richest country in the world, that wealth has not trickled down to the middle class at all, compared to other nations. The effects of this shrinkage of the middle class could spell big trouble in America's future. 

Falling Behind

Most of us have known for quite some time now but a New York Times article has recently confirms the fact. According to an analysis of the numbers based on surveys reviewing the last 35 years, figures show that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.
In other words, the impact of income inequality based on flawed policy is driving Middle-class families to the point of extinction.

The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.

Hardly startling news, of course, but the proof is fairly conclusive when compared to other countries. 
If studies are anything to go by, then it isn't that America overall is being poorer, only that the middle-class is withering away. The top half of the income scale is still wealthier than any other nation. Indeed, when it comes to global economic growth, America is still a powerhouse, but that's not the problem. The problem is the middle class is clearly not benefiting. 

While America might remain the most wealthy country in the world, the actual distribution of that wealth has changed considerably since our parents' day. As a New York Times article explained:

With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world.

And a comparison of nations makes pretty grim reading. While median income has risen in other countries, in the US, adjusting for inflation, median income per capita has remained virtually unchanged since 2000.

The same measure, by comparison, rose about 20 percent in Britain between 2000 and 2010 and 14 percent in the Netherlands. Median income also rose 20 percent in Canada between 2000 and 2010, to the equivalent of $18,700. Other income surveys, conducted by government agencies, suggest that since 2010 pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States and is now most likely higher. Pay in several European countries has also risen faster since 2010 than it has in the United States.

The cause of the decline are obvious but that doesn't mean they are easy to fix. There will be no quick fixes. It will take compromise and concerted effort to reverse the trend. 

That's something that seems to be in short supply in Washington.