Conservative Republican Publicly Condemns Trump's Assault on "Demonstrable Facts."

On July 25, 2018, Judy Woodruff hosted a conversation on the PBS News Hour entitled “What’s happened to the truth under President Trump?” One of her guests was conservative Republican Peter Wehner, who served on the White House Staffs of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Ms Woodruff asked “Peter Wehner, the fact that we’re even having this conversation tells us that something different is going on. As we said, you worked in the Bush White House 41, 43, you worked for President Reagan. What is different?”

Wehner replied “Well, what’s different is that we don’t have a run-of-the-mill liar in the White House. We have a pathological liar. This is a man who lies on personal matters, political matters, domestic, international…We have never had a president who…lies so pathologically, and lies needlessly often. That’s one.

The other thing is the number of people in this country who believe in the lies, who have accepted them. This has tremendous damaging effects on the political and civic culture of the country. A self-governing nation can’t run if you can’t have a common set of facts, if you can’t agree on common realities.

What you have got is a man in the White House who is engaged in not just an assault on truth, but an effort to annihilate truth.”

When Judy Woodruff responded “annihilate truth…that’s an incredible statement,” Wehner said “It’s true. It’s not just the lies. It’s that he’s trying to destroy the categories of truth and falsity.

And that’s really why he goes after the media, right, because the media has always been the institution in American life that has kept presidents accountable when it comes to what’s true and what’s not. And he knew from the outset of his presidency that he had to de-legitimize the media, so he could get away with this kind of thing. And this has an enormous seepage effect in the life of a country.”

Judy went on to two other participants in the conversation, but returned to ask: “Pete Wehner, as we look back over the last year-and-a-half of the president in office, are there moments where something wasn’t borne out by evidence that you think in particular stand out?

Wehner replied “Yes, there are several. I mean, there’s so many, it’s hard to — I would say the Charlottesville event was very important, when he said that there were good people on both sides.

I think the attacks on the Mueller investigation are extremely important, because this is an investigation trying to discern truth, and he’s trying to destroy it. The one where he said that Hillary Clinton won [the majority of votes] because three million illegal votes were cast.

I will tell you one that might strike people as trivial, but I think, in retrospect, was extremely important, that was the original lie at the dawn of the presidency of Donald Trump. And that was the crowd size, when he insisted and sent his press secretary out to insist it was larger than Barack Obama’s.

In one sense, people will say this is a trivial matter. What is it? Who cares?

The reason it mattered is that this was right out of the box, not just a lie, but it was an assault on empirical, demonstrable facts. There were pictures that showed the difference.

And that was the tell, as they say, in poker. That said that this guy was something different. He was going to go after truth in a way. And it’s been a sustained, relentless assault on truth."

The closing statement of this Reagan and Bush advisor was important as well. When asked “What does this mean for our democracy? People talk about a democracy is built on a foundation of accepted truths, reality. What is this doing?” He replied:

“It is hurting democracy. It’s weakening the foundations.

And that’s why people have to stand up and speak out. Democracy is about persuasion, right, not coercion. And you can’t persuade people if you can’t agree on facts, you can’t even agree on common problems.

Beyond that, when you enter this realm, it deepens polarization, it deepens the sense of political tribalism. All of the anger, all of the divisions are made worse.

But I would say a couple of things. Viruses create their own antibodies. And the public can do something about this. You can do it in your individual lives. People can do it in social media. They can make a commitment not to put party loyalties ahead of the truth when they’re in conflict.”

He went on to say “I think you are starting to get a reaction. I’m sure you’re getting a reaction against it, because people understand both the disorienting effect of this — that’s one thing.

But there’s something else going on as well, which is everybody knows in your individual life you can’t live if you don’t have a common understanding of truth. And that’s true in a national life as well. I think Donald Trump, the effect of all of this is exhausting on the public. I think they’re embarrassed, as was said earlier. And I think they’re ashamed of what’s happening. And I think there will be in 2020 and maybe in 2018 a reaction against. This is not as if America has a terminal disease and nothing can be done. Individual lives matter. If one person does something, it may not, but if a lot of people act together, you can change the political and civic culture. That’s happened before, and it can happen again.”  

The reason that I am quoting this man at length is that he deserves a great deal of credit for dedicating himself to factual reality. His statements, in the present climate of the Republican Party, where Donald Trump has an 88% approval rating, will virtually disqualify him from serving another GOP candidate. But beyond his personal bravery, there is his desire for a bi-partisan communication and understanding of the empirical evidence. While we may not always have common interpretations based upon that evidence, at least we can agree to a rational, honest conversation about the facts. This is how our nation will reach across the political/cultural divide that has left us paralyzed in so many ways. If we can agree on the facts, instead of making them up, we can act in concert around areas of agreement and common national interest. Even as progressives on the opposite end of the political spectrum, we can admire this conservative's integrity around political honesty and work together with moderates and conservatives willing to oppose Trump’s attempt to "annihilate truth." On this issue, I am willing to reach across the national divide to shake Mr Wehner's hand. 

The full video and transcript of this discussion is at

 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-happened-to-the-truth-under-president-trump

Corporations & Plutocrats. Overcoming Harmful Greed Nationally and Worldwide.

It is important to the workings of a republic that average citizens compromise over disagreements where they can. Even when the disagreements in worldview are so widely apart that a compromise is not possible, we can at least listen to rationally and respectfully expressed oppositional opinion. We can understand that, despite our differences, our opposition has the best of intentions for solving the problems of our planet or nation.

However the same cannot be said for individual plutocrats and multinational corporations. They do not have the best of intentions. Their decisions are based entirely upon personal greed and hunger for power. The wealthy U.S. elite, who bought Congress by paying for their elections, made House and Senate vote in favor of (billionaire) Donald Trump’s tax cuts for the rich and corporations. They knew that this move would damage our economy and burden the nation’s children with an increased national debt; but they did it anyway. The pharmaceutical companies that sold DES knew that it caused fetal deformities; but sold it anyway. The companies Chiquita and Dole knew that the pesticide DBCP caused cancer and sterility (it is banned in the United States); but used it in Nicaragua anyway. These wealthy individuals and firms knew that their actions would harm people; but their greed was more important to them.

However the above conscious harm by plutocrats and companies, as bad as it is, is not even among the most intentionally murderous of examples. Canadian mining company, Hudbay Minerals Inc., is facing charges that it hired thugs to murder an environmental & indigenous rights activist in Guatemala; a common practice among multinationals looking to exploit local resources. That goes a little farther than knowing that your product can hurt someone. The plutocrats and corporations who have the United States involved in the Middle East, killing hundreds of thousands in proxy wars or overt invasions because that’s where their oil profits lay, are more harmful still. Direct murder, war and genocide, for the sake of profit, is a deliberate and broadly felt trauma of which the perpetrators are entirely aware.

Even though the examples of harm are so widespread, and even though the perpetrators are so powerful, there are solutions, both national and international, which can curtail the damage caused by these powers.

Nationally, we need to recognize that the first purpose of any government should be to protect its citizens. This is certainly not why governments were formed in the first place. The first agricultural societies whose settlements expanded beyond simple tribal units, were organized by elites with armies who wished to have a population of workers to supply them with food, build their cities and otherwise serve them. But we have struggled from those roots to create representative republics, and it’s time that those republics stop serving elites. In the United States it is possible, without violent revolution, to get money out of politics and take decision-making away from the plutocrats. This is the goal of Common Cause, Occupy and other like-minded organizations. If corporate and wealthy donors were unable to give money to politicians’ campaigns, politicians would not support the interests of capitalist oligarchy alone. If U.S. citizens were more involved and more watchful of their elected leaders, their leaders would be required to protect them or lose elections. This goal is a long shot. Citizens generally do not wish to be politically involved, people are easily misled by propaganda, and the plutocracy is too vigilant to let democracy just happen without a floor fight.

There are activists who will argue that Common Cause and Occupy are not natural allies, since Common Cause has a reformist agenda of changing an aspect of electoral process, whereas Occupy’s proponents have a more radical agenda of subverting capitalist political domination worldwide. History shows us that the success of the Women’s Movement in the 1970s and 1980s occurred because there was a spectrum of feminists striving against patriarchy. On one end of this spectrum were reformist feminists working to change laws. At the other end of the spectrum were radical feminists engaged in street action and establishing a separate women’s culture. Women’s culture provides space for women away from the static of male ideas and societal control where women have the opportunity to create new ideas, visionary art, support systems, etc. While the goals of feminism have not yet all been attained, this combination of women hammering at the system from both the inside and the outside was immensely successful at creating legal and societal change. The same can be true for the movement against plutocracy and multinational capitalist abuses.

If national democracy is a long shot, an international democratic institution that can prevent plutocrats and international corporations from harming people is even farther off as a goal. Multinationals can shift from country to country and avoid accountability. Wealthy individuals can move themselves and their influence with even greater ease. In addition, the one world governing body which could have the power to create the peace and harmony that is in its charter, the United Nations, is riddled with the interests of the powerful and the wealthy. It is therefore entirely ineffective at carrying-out its program.

So what’s the solution? Start small. Join with Common Cause, Occupy (or the equivalent in your country if you are reading this outside of the U.S.). It’s a small step; but it will lead you to action. The goal of having a national government that places protection of its citizens before corporate and wealthy class greed is a long way off. The patience and action required is that of a mindful meditation where an activist places one foot in front of another and faces the task step by step.

https://www.commoncause.org/

http://occupywallst.org/

Rohingya Genocide & Maintaining US Economic Prominence Over China. A Screwball Plan.

Like most of you, I have ten screwball ideas a day. However, you have enough intelligence or impulse control to dismiss yours. I write mine down and blog them to thousands of people on the internet. Here’s one more. It is a solution to the ongoing Rohingya Genocide. Simultaneously, it is an opportunity for the United States to create an industrial base that would compete with China and maintain its economic prominence in the world. The structure of this article will present first, the plan; second, the advantages; and third, the obstacles to success.

The Plan.

Step One: Have the US Military set-up a safe zone for refugees on the northern tip of the Rakhine (Arakan) State, just across the border from Bangladesh, in Myanmar. I suggest the US Military, and not a UN peacekeeping force, since the UN is an ineffectual body that avoids placing security forces in danger. Witness the behavior of the UN during the Rwanda Genocide, where they withdrew UN forces at the moment of crisis (over the objections of the mission commander), instead of reinforcing them, resulting in mass slaughter of the Tutsi. The US Military, in both its officer corps and its ground forces, has a different ethos. I have spoken with ex-military citizens who express that, although combat is a frightening experience, many in the military want to do good in the world and use the skills they have learned. I understand that this is not universal, but they would not back down from a challenge given to them by Congress or the President. And yes, I understand Congress and the President are a problem here. I will discuss them in the obstacles section. Hold that thought. Rescue missions would be necessary to evacuate remaining Rohingya in Myanmar to the safe zone.

Step Two: Immediate international aid in terms of food, medicine, temporary housing, water, sanitation and other necessities of life would be required to sustain the refugee population. There would need to be enough US Military personnel and resources to deter Myanmar forces from re-taking that area. Setting-up the zone with its back to Bangladesh would permit easy access to a friendly route for funneling supplies, easy return of Rohingya population creating pressure in Bangladesh, and strategically, one less hostile border to the safe zone.

Step Three: Okay, here’s where the plan goes off the rails. One of the main reasons why the United States will soon surrender its position of global economic prominence to China is that China has been willing to exploit third world nations in Asia and Africa at a greater rate, with greater central coordination, than US corporations have been willing to exploit them. In addition, global industrial corporations that began in the US have simply abandoned their country when cheap labor and lower taxes beckoned from foreign shores. These have resulted in loss of prosperous blue collar employment and revenue in the US.

A possible solution could involve the Rohingya and other world populations that are starving, oppressed or victims of genocide and war. The average salary in Yangon, Myanmar (a comparatively expensive city in which to live in the country) is $300 per month. If we establish factories in the safety zone, paying workers $600 per month, they would be among the upper middle class in the region, well-paid for their labor given the cost of living. The US government could establish contracts with US corporations, selecting those who have already moved operations overseas, who are willing to set-up OSHA-regulated plants within the circle of safety. A more radical, but more profitable and effective, notion is to have the US Government itself create factories, administer them, and take the profits directly without using private sector middlemen. After all, the corporations that have already abandoned the US have moved elsewhere so that they can pay people less than the average wage of their target nation and avoid OSHA regulations, pollution controls, Child Labor Laws, and other humane restrictions that exist in the US. This safety zone could be administered by a combination of military and government planners, along with elected representatives from the Rohingya settled in this area. The protectorate established, with well-paying jobs, safety from genocide and imposition of the aforementioned humane industrial restrictions, could be a desirable place to live. In addition, a system of factories administered by the United States would pay-off any initial outlay of cost for military and aid to the region, the produce an annual profit which could be directly applied to the US debt.

The Advantages.

Advantage Number One: This safety zone could be a blueprint for other areas in the world that are troubled by war, genocide, starvation and poverty. Many of these areas are Muslim and create recruitment grounds for violent Islamic terrorist organizations. Making some of these areas prosperous and safe would serve, not just the population under duress, but also the population of the United States in terms of reduction of Islamic terrorism and debt reduction. The Muslim Rohingya Insurgency is a military force that will only become more radical and anti-Western as it develops connections to international terrorist networks willing to supply arms, propaganda, training, bases, funds and other means of support. We could provide a mutually profitable alternative.

Advantage Number Two: Expansion of US geopolitical influence into a region largely dominated by China is a helpful bit of strategy. As China’s economy expands, they will be employing more and more of the area’s population. We could get to this area first, providing a better standard of living and create a thorn in the side of our main competition. No doubt, any area established by the US military and government would include an intelligence component which could discover useful information to give the US and edge over China. China already accounts for most of the $600 billion that the US loses annually to intellectual property theft. Maybe we could get some of that back.

Advantage Number Three: Although every empire falls, there is no reason why our empire needs to fall NOW. I realize that my audience is largely to the left-of-center, and has objections to empire; but an economic leader in the modern age is an economic empire, like it or not. A world-wide union, like the European Union, is not on the horizon. We have not been the most humane or fair nation on the planet. After all, that is not how one becomes an empire. However, the replacement of the United States with a China, (who has an even worse human rights record, uses slave labor from North Korea and its own prisons, and is a dictatorship that is not answerable to its citizens’ consciences), would be worse for international politics. So, whether you like our empire or not, its stature is better for the world than that of China. If they are willing to enslave their own dissidents and those of an ally, how are they going to treat the rest of the world?

Advantage Number Four: The United States lacks something that China has: a cohesive economic plan, and an undivided government, to move it forward. This safety zone idea could be the first building block in a cooperative effort between the contentious branches of the US government to protect our nation’s interests. It has a number of features: humanitarian concerns (appealing to the left), debt reduction (appealing to the right), and beating China (appealing to both). These features have the power to unite political factions into a joint effort.

The Obstacles.

I hope that I have not conveyed the notion that I am an idiot. I recognize, as you do upon reading this proposal, that there are obstacles. Likely insurmountable obstacles. But the conversation about how to end genocide and avert international suffering has to muddle through a number of unlikely plans and confused minds before it hits on something that can actually work. This idea has potential. But it faces a Congress that can’t decide if it wants to fund its own budget. We also have a President whose ability and character I will avoid here because the purpose is not to bash Trump and Trumpism, and I may actually have some from the right-of-center willing to discuss this plan. Republicans will oppose this plan because it contains some socialistic ideas (this despite the fact that the US frequently tolerates a little socialism for humane reasons [Medicare, Medicaid, US Postal Service, the list is long]). Democrats won’t agree because the only thing they unite on is their opposition to Republican proposals. Citizens to the left-of-center don’t like to see themselves as part of an empire and wouldn’t act to preserve one even if it were in their own interest. Citizens to the right-of-center don’t like socialism and rarely support global humanitarian assistance unless it has the stamp of some Christian organization.

The Conclusion.

So here we are with an idea, that has no supporters left or right, in a nation that is politically divided in its citizenry and its Congress, that cannot agree to support a humanitarian effort in its own best interest. I’m not sure if this situation says more about my crackpot idea or about the crisis in the United States today. But I think that, like the New Deal, this proposal has something for each side of the politico-cultural divide. If I knew how to ignite the necessary, hippy-dippy campfire of cooperation we need to circle around, sing Kumbaya, warm ourselves and put aside our differences, I would already have done it. I’m probably wrong; but perhaps this plan could be that campfire’s spark.