The Futility of "Norms"

Today, perhaps more than any day of the Trump administration, revealed the absolute futility of institutional norms in opposing him. Robert Mueller made his statement, which basically amounted to "I am signaling that the president is a criminal, but I can't actually say that because of norms and process, only Congress can." While institutionalists like Mueller follow the rules to a T, Trump just goes on burning down the house. His daily violation of what were once hard and fast rules of political life has become so common that nobody talks about it. This week he not only attacked Joe Biden with schoolyard insults, he took the side of Kim Jong Un against him.

"Politics ends at the water's edge" used to be one of the few evergreen behavioral standards for presidents, and now that's shredded. (Of course, if a Democrat gets elected president expect Republicans to resurrect that rule, and all the other ones Trump broke.) Presidents are also supposed to divest from their financial holdings, to not put their children in high positions, and to not declare emergencies just to have their way. I don't think there's much of a point raising objections over these, because Trump has clearly shown that the unwritten laws and norms don't matter. When he said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not get punished that was the truest thing he ever said.

That's why it's insanely frustrating to watch people root for Mueller on the sidelines instead of getting out there into the streets. Direct action gets the goods, as the IWW used to say. The airport protests pushed back against the Muslim ban. Massive protests last summer led to the end of the family separation policy. If the offices of every Democrat in Congress and every Republican of the Amash stripe (there are a few) were picketed by protestors I would bet you that Pelosi's impeachment reluctance would fade.

Anyone waiting for process, institutions, or democratic norms to sort out this mess on their own without mass action is not just naive, they are actively doing harm. Way too many middle class liberals believe way too much in the system's benevolence, and are far too meek to raise the hell necessary to fight this lawless regime. It's time for more direct action, and for those people lobotomized by watching The West Wing to pick a side.

Pence and Trump at the NRA

Today Mike Pence and Donald Trump spoke at the NRA's convention in Dallas. Amidst the absolute shitstorm of the Trump administration it was easy to miss, but very important.

This year has seen the biggest youth-driven protests since the Vietnam War, all calling for gun control. In the face of a popular outcry that has mobilized millions, politicians who are concerned with public opinion might feel some responsibility to move away from their unpopular opinions, pay lip service to those aggrieved, or even just to keep their mouths shut on the topic. Now, in the face of protest, the president and vice-president went straight to the NRA to pledge their fealty. This would have been surprising even in normal times; the last president to address the organization was Reagan. The vice president even openly stated the NRA's most infamous talking point "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The president went on one of his patented rants, railing about witch hunts and attacking the justice system for daring to investigate him. He did this in front of an organization that disseminates radical right-wing propaganda through NRA TV. These were the "second amendment people" he referred to threateningly during the 2016 campaign, implying that they would do violence against Hilary Clinton. These were the people "warmed up" for the president's speech with videos played in the convention hall attacking Black Lives Matter and journalists.

Now let's play a game. Let's imagine we are behind the veil of ignorance in an unnamed country. If the leader of that country went to an organization advocating gun proliferation, whose convention attacked political dissent and the press, and that leader spent his speech ranting against his enemies, how would we view it? This certainly does not sound like the behavior of a democratic leader. It sounds like a despot. Imagine the headlines if a leader in a foreign country did this: "Embattled Leader Condemns Rule Of Law In Speech At Radical Reactionary Meeting." 

In a subtle way, Trump and Pence's trip to the NRA is a sign of our democracy's death. In a nation crying out for limitations on guns, nothing is going to happen to answer those cries. Some of this is rooted in contempt for the political opposition, but some of it comes with the knowledge that our system, as currently composed, currently allows minority rule.

Trump is president, despite losing by three million votes. The House is gerrymandered eight ways from Sunday. The Senate gives outside power to small, conservative states. The Supreme Court remains in conservative hands after the Senate refused to move Obama's nominee forward. The right is well aware that they are in the minority, but also that that doesn't matter. With the levers of government rigged, with massive infusions of Koch cash able to swing state-level elections, they know that they are not about to lose power anytime soon.

The only possible short-term solution is for those of us in the disempowered majority is to organize organize organize and flood the polls in November. I am afraid that the momentum of the gun control movement after Parkland has already been lost. The other side is organized and ruthless, and we are still, even at this late day, divided and in disarray.

America's Year Of Living Dangerously

Events in the past year in the United States have helped me understand events in other countries I used to have a hard time wrapping my mind around. Having grown up in a stable democracy that had maintained the same Constitution for two centuries, it took effort to understand how people reacted to events in less stable countries.

Now, there are a lot of things I get. When there was a military coup in Egypt during Arab Spring, I was shocked at the popular support for it. How could the military taking over possibly be a happy event for people who wanted more of a voice? Now I realize that when it is a choice between an authoritarian trainwreck and a military takeover that many people might prefer the latter. This is the first time in my lifetime in America that I've thought this was a possibility. Hearing what I am hearing about Mattis and Kelly's responses to working with Trump I wonder if the praetorian guard scenario will play out.

Another thing that makes sense to me now is election boycotting. In many countries supporters of the candidate opposing the leader boycott the election when they feel that it isn't fair. I've usually wondered about this, since it seems like giving up before the battle is fought. Now I get it. If an election is rigged, boycotting it undercuts the legitimacy of the government. This action also helps rally and solidify the opposition. With gerrymandering and voter suppression rigging our system, a boycott in the worst hit areas does not sound like a far-fetched idea.

I am having these thoughts, of course, because I can feel America's democratic stability crumbling. Our president is threatening to shut down critical news outlets. In many states the vote is suppressed and districts drawn to ensure a Republican victory. The president is using his pardon power to forgive political cronies. Meanwhile little to nothing of substance is being done to stop this. Before long I predict we will see the kinds of events we normally associate with "troubled" nations.