“Slow Burn” Is the Greatest Takedown of the Trump Presidency Yet


In retrospect, it was inevitable that in the age of the most corrupt, venal, petty, and un-American president in our history, a look back at the previous champion would emerge. But that inevitabilty does not in the slightest diminish the accomplishment of the guy who got their first and actually did it, Leon Neyfakh of Slate, creator of “Slow Burn,” an eight-part podcast (what used to be called a “radio documentary”) about Watergate.

This impeccably made, compulsively listenable series takes us back to that roughly two-year period from the botched break-in at the DNC headquarters in July 1972 to Nixon’s roof-of-the-US Embassy-in-Saigon-like departure from the White House lawn in August 1974. Cleverly, the show recounts that tectonic but already heavily documented period by focusing on little-known or never-fully told stories, like those of the doomed Martha Mitchell, little-remembered Texas Congressman Wright Patman, Watergate committee staffers Marc Lackritz and Mary Diorio, conspiracy theorist Mae Brussell, and others.

But, not surprisingly, what makes “Slow Burn” so special, and so germane to the present moment, is how it illuminates the current crisis with an eerie precision that will send a chill down your spine.

Or is it up your spine?

Either way, it’s fucking spooky.


I was a boy during the Watergate scandal (Nixon resigned just before I turned 11) so my perspective on it was that of a child. Revisiting it now, forty plus years later, was bracing.

Neyfakh has done a phenomenal public service with this podcast, not merely in offering an incisive survey of this seminal piece of American history—particularly for younger generations that didn’t experience it firsthand, including Neyfakh himself, as he frequently notes—but in giving us a prism through which to view the present political crisis. Though the series occasionally makes overt reference to Trump, mostly it just tells the Watergate story in all its gory glory and lets the audience connect those dots itself…. which is asburdly easy to do. At virtually every step the story of Watergate offers echoes of the present day. (Yes, I know  have the chronology of an echo backward.)

Listening to Nixon’s press secretaries sneer at the very idea the White House had anything to do with what it called a “third rate burglary” (they were shocked, shocked!) is EXACTLY like listening to an outraged Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Mike Pence, and Trump himself insist that his campaign and administration had NO contacts with Russia whatsoever…assurances that, like those about the break-in at DNC headquarters, quickly fell apart.

Listening to Nixon’s defenders in Congress and elsewhere—from George H.W. Bush to Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan—angrily insist that the scandal was overblown, that it was a “witchhunt,” that the “liberal press” was out to get the president, that the country ought to “move on and let the man do the job he was elected to do” is EXACTLY like listening to the tedious Trumpian refrain of his minions and apologists today.

Reagan— governor of California at the time, and Mr. Law and Order, a man who had once urged a “bloodbath” against antiwar protestors—comes off as a particularly noteworthy jackass when he tries to explain how the Watergate burglars were “well-meaning individuals” committed to Nixon’s re-election (as if those two are compatible), and shouldn’t be considered criminals because they weren’t “criminals at heart.”

Even as the evidence against Nixon mounted, the excuses Republicans used to defend him—hilariously parodied by Art Buchwald—continued, astonishingly reminiscent of a certain present day phenomenon. (Chief among it, the “whataboutism” of Chappaquiddick, a near-perfect analog to the cries about Vince Foster, Benghazi, the Fast and the Furious, Uranium One, and child porn rings run out of pizza parlors. Chappaquiddick was at least a legitimate crime for which Kennedy bore blame, not a John Birch fever dream of the tinfoil hat crowd.)

Listening to Republicans calculate that Democrats wouldn’t impeach Nixon because they loathed his VP even more made me smile, and listening to Nixon make the ridiculous claim that he wasn’t concerned about himself, only about protecting the prerogatives of ”future presidents,” made me laugh out loud. Apparently it didn’t fool many people at the time either: like Trump’s taxes or his obstinance on Russiagate, a stubborn refusal to let the evidence come out has a funny way of making people think you’re guilty. But like his “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam—which did fool a lot of people—Dick had a real penchant for these howlers, again presaging another Republican congenital liar 44 years later.

It is telling, however, that in attempting to thwart the special prosecutor’s investigation against him, not even the reliably vicious Richard Milhous Nixon dared engage in the kind of overt, hyperbolic, public attacks that Trump has mounted against Jim Comey, Bob Mueller, and even his own Attorney General.

Of course, Nixon did do something worse: he fired Archibald Cox. Listening to “Slow Burn”’s account of the Saturday Night Massacre is especially chilling, though also thrilling in its portrayal of the integrity  of Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. (Nixon’s allegation that Richardson was putting his “purely personal commitments ahead of the public public interest” is a perfect bookend to Trump’s beyond-outlandish claim that the FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s home and office was “an attack on our country.”) The Saturday Night Massacre functions simultaneously as a parallel to the firing of Comey—the single worst, most self-destructive decision of Trump’s presidency, and the one that has brought all this shit down upon him—and an ominous augury of what might befall Mr. Mueller, with a similar backfiring effect, one hopes. (Rod Rosenstein, take note: history has its eyes on you.)

Perhaps above all, listening to rank-and-file Republicans dismiss Nixon’s actions as no big deal is a disturbing parallel to today’s chorus from Trump supporters, whose typical MO is first to deny any wrongdoing by their boy, whatever the subject (Russia, taxes, Stormy), and then, when pressed, eventually blurt out Nathan Jessup style: “Even if he did, so what?”

Likewise, the right wing’s central defense during Watergate was, “Everybody does it; Nixon just got caught!”, and its corollary, “We don’t care!” This resort to cyncicism-as-justification is itself eminently cynical, as neither of those things are really true. Everybody does not subvert the Constitution, siphon off campaign money for an illegal slush fund, fire special prosecutors, engage in perjury, wanton deception of the American public, intimidation of the press, abuse of the FBI and CIA as a personal gestapo, dirty tricks, ratfucking, and on and on, and certainly not at the level Nixon did. And Republicans damn sure do care that that stuff happens—and indeed, infinitely less egregious transgressions—when it’s done by Democrats or anyone else. Ask the Clintons.

Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.

Of course, even mainstream conservatives evenutally turned on Nixon when the sheer magnitude of his crimes became undeniable. I grew up in a garden variety middle class Republican family—an Army family, no less— and we lived just outside Washington when the scandal reached its denouement. I distinctly remember the day— it must have been in early 1974—that my mother shook her head sadly and said, “I’ve tried to believe the President. But now….” and trailed off.

I think her attitude reflected that of many honest conservatives, and foreshadowed a new political reality in America that would be much more jaded—ironically, one that facilitated the exact sort of scuzzy behavior in which Nixon specialized. This then was another tragic legacy that Tricky Dick bequeathed us, paving the way for the deeply Machiavellian, viciously immoral incarnation of the current Republican Party and its mean girl cheerleaders in the right wing media who have exploited that toxic mentality for their own ends….a doubly cruel irony.


The listener reviews of “Slow Burn” on iTunes are overwhelmingly raves—Citizen Kane would be envious. But the cranky few mostly bitch about the comparisons to Trump, with some complaining that it’s unfair to him, and others that it’s unfair to Nixon. I am reminded of the commonality between opinions and assholes, to say nothing of the latter who have the former.

My one quibble with the otherwise brilliant series comes in Episode 5, “True Bellevers,” which might also be its best. That installment shines in its depiction of the blind loyalty  of Nixon’s supporters, both in the GOP leadership and the general public. But for my taste, in the course of that telling, Neyfakh gives too much credence to a man named Mike Madigan, a member of the Rebublican staff of the Senate Watergate Committee (and now a prominent archconservative Washington DC lawyer), who adamantly depicts his side as patriotic Americans dedicated to discovering the truth, and not a bunch of craven partisans trying only to protect the Nixon White House, as others have charged.

Yet this depiction comes hot on the heels of the show’s revelation that the Republican members of the committee were secretly coordinating with the White House, which was leaking to them info, advice, and even actual crib sheets with instructions on how to undermine witnesses like John Dean. (The prototype, quite clearly, for the behavior of Devin Nunes.) Madigan proudly identifies himself as an acolyte of his boss and friend Fred Thompson, the minority counsel for the GOP side of the Senate Watergate committee, and later a Republican US Senator himself and failed presidential candidate in 2008. Thompson personally wrote the crucial piece of evidence that accidentally broke the Watergate case wide open: notes on how to discredit Dean that incorporated direct quotes from conversations captured by the secret White House taping system. It was the mysteriousness of those quotes that caught the attention of a staff stenorgapher, who in turn alerted a Democratic staffer named Scott Armstrong, who in turn asked HR Haldeman’s deputy, retired Air Force Colonel Alexander Butterfield, where the quotes came from.

I understand that Neyfakh may have been letting Madigan to say his piece and allowing the audience to judge for itself, with the previously mentioned damning evidence to the contrary still lingering in its collective mind. But does it linger? Or is it obliterated by what follows, which feels very much like a “Now wait a minute” journalistic trope that purports to show “both sides of the story.” That is very much like the predelection for false equivalencies in contemporary American reportage that has led people to equate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as somehow equally corrupt—or equally qualified to be president.

To be fair, it was a GOP staffer named Don Sanders—Armstrong’s Republican counterpart in the tag team interview of Colonel Butterfield—who delivered the coup de grace by asking bluntly whether Nixon was secretly taping his conversations. To which Butterfield guilelessly replied—in a moment that would get you thrown out of the Writers Guild if this were a fictional screenplay—“I guess you guys must already know, the President has an automatic taping device in each of his offices.”

Madigan rather snidely disputes Armstrong’s account and is scornful of his role of cracking Butterfield. Neyfakh has him on tape calling Armstrong’s version “horseshit” and objecting to the portrayal of Fred Thompson as anything as honest and forthright, even though we have just learned that Thompson was conspiring with the White House to undermine witnesses against it, to include use of transcripts from the secret tapes.

Madigan’s claim is deeply unconvincing, and betrayed even by the verbiage he uses. In the same breath that he insists on the bipartisan nature of the Senate investigation, he refers to Sanders as “our guy” (meaning a Republican), thereby emphasizing the very tribalism he is denying.

But all you really need to know about Madigan’s credibility—or lack thereof—is that he recently defended Trump’s firing of James Comey and scoffed at the idea of any parallels to Watergate. ‘Nuff said.

It may be unfair to single out for criticism this one moment in a series that ripples with hundreds of countervailing examples of the very best journalism. But it speaks to an important point about the current state of play in America in 2018.

That Don Sanders did what he did speaks to his personal integrity. What it does not do is prove Madigan’s claim of general Republican altruism. The behavior of Madigan’s idols Thompson and Howard Baker (among others) in carrying water for the Nixon White House while maintaining the pretense of impartiality cannot be excused, and these days looks very familiar. The principled behavior of individual Republicans like Sanders flew in the face of the party leadership, not in line with it.

(Meanwhile, history best remembers Fred Thompson as a character actor in films and TV shows like “Law & Order,” where he routinely played the kind of guy he sort of had been, or aspired to be: district attorneys, CIA men, senators, and presidents. Occasionally he was cast as a villain: arguably, a role he played in real life too. In his golden years, as required by law for aging actors, he was a TV pitchman for reverse mortgages, which actually may have been a less despicable exploitation of his fellow senior citizens than being a Republican politician.)

Nil nisi bonum be damned: what we need right now is a lot more Republicans like Don Sanders and a lot fewer like Fred Thomspon.


This issue of institutional corruption is a huge one.

During Watergate, the GOP fixated on the irrelevance of the taping system, arguing—with some merit—that previous 20th century presidents had also recorded White House conversations. What they ignored was the much more salient point that it wasn’t the existence of the tapes that was the issue, but what was on them. Nixon sure knew that, and so did Rose Mary Woods.

The tapes ultimately revealed Nixon’s guilt. But when Reagan, Bush, Ford, and others self-righteously defended Nixon in the early and even middle phases of Watergate, insisting that even the mere allegation of his involvement was outrageous, was it criminal perfidy on their parts, or did these men really believe in the president’s innocence?

Either way, they were at least willing to let an investigation go forward, if only in hopes that it would clear Nixon’s name. Despite the aforementioned obstructionism, the Republican Party seemed to understand that the rule of law demanded that much, or at least the pretense of such. Contrast that with today, when much of the modern GOP spends its time citing various flimsy, dishonest, and utterly hypocritical non-reasons for loudly insisting that the Mueller probe be shut down, and doing everything it can to achieve that.

In the end, the accumulated weight of evidence finally forced the Republican leadership to abandon Nixon and present him with an Corleone-like offer he couldn’t refuse: resign before you are impeached and convicted. Nixon wisely took the deal. Clearly, in appointing Gerry Ford to replace the disgraced Spiro “Nolo Contendere” Agnew (another story), he had anticipated this possible contingency and planned for it.

Whether the current GOP leadership will ever reach a similar inflection point, if only for strategic reasons of self-preservation (I’m not holding my breath for a sudden burst of principle) remains to be seen. They may instead go to the mattresses, believing—not without justification, based on recent events—that they can bully, bluster, and bullshit the American people into submission.

Likewise, it remains to be seen if there are any circumstances under which Trump would see the writing on the wall (or be able to read it) and cut his losses. Nixon was, if nothing else, a truly tough sonofabitch, as even his enemies would concede. Trump, by contrast, is simply a monster who can’t be reasoned with, even when it’s in his own best interest, as his own lawyers would attest. That may end up being his epitaph.


As the Butterfield incident showed, it was the Nixon White House’s own clumsy attempts to obstruct the Watergate investigation that led to the president’s eventual downfall. Forget about a smoking gun: with the tapes, the White House handed the Senate committee the loaded gun with which it blew Nixon’s brains out.

OK, I’m mixing metaphors, detective versus assassin wise, but you get the idea.

The comparisons to Team Trump—the gang that couldn’t collude straight—are blatant. From the moment the Very Stable Genius fired James Comey, if not sooner, the wounds this administration has suffered have consistently been self-inflicted, from its hamhanded attempts to squash the investigation into Russiagate, to its relentless denigration of the intelligence and law enforcement communities and a free press, to its vicious attacks on the rule of law and the courts, to its general desperation to cover up….something (stay tuned). The Trump White House is its own worst enemy, which is saying something considering how many other enemies it has.

It was after all, three instances of obstruction of justice that were the first impeachment charges brought against Nixon—triggering his resignation eleven days later— not the inciting crime itself, though let us duly remember that he was implicated in both. That fact ought to be foremost in the minds of Trump and his Kool-Aid besotted followers.

When it comes to Russiagate, the central question still under consideration is the extent, if any, of Trump’s involvement in conspiring with Moscow to defraud the United States—a more precise description than the amorphous “collusion,” and the charge the Mueller team brought against 13 Russian nationals last February, the one to which Paul Gates pled guilty, and the one with which Don Jr. and others may eventually be charged as well.

In other words, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” 

But even if no such evidence is found, the issue of Trump’s obstruction of that inquiry is impossible to reputably dispute, and may well be the thing that brings him down. Contrary to the popular saying, the coverup isn’t always worse than the crime, especially when the crime is treason, but it’s often the thing that gets you busted.


Nixon, an absolutely horrible president and even worse human being (see Hunter Thompson’s obituary of him), was at least a proper villain. Just from a pragmatic point of view, he would blanch at Trump’s cloddishness and stupidity. Paranoid, cripplingly insecure, petty, vindictive, bullying, self-pitying, pathologically dishonest, and contemptuous of democracy and the rule of law (sound like anyone else you know?), Nixon was at least smart, politically savvy, and deeply experienced in public life…not some demented, borderline illiterate game show host and D-list celebrity wannabe untethered to objective reality who’d been born into obscene wealth and never did anything other than try to accumulate more of it. (And fuck porn stars.) On domestic policy Nixon actually oversaw some decent things, such as the institution of wage-and-price controls and the creation of the EPA. Today, some of his policies and positions would get him run out of the GOP as a flaming liberal. (Saint Reagan too, by the by.)

But to me, as a son of a Vietnam veteran and professional soldier in my own right, Nixon’s mysteriously enduring reptuation among hawks as a rockribbed champion of our national defense stands as one of the most stomach-churning swindles in American history.

This is a man who, after building an entire political career on rabid, borderline McCarthyite anti-communism, promised an end to the war in Vietnam during the 1968 presidential campaign. But subsequent research has shown that at the exact same time he was sabotaging the peace process through backchannel messages to the Saigon regime in order to keep the war going and help his prospects at the polls. (It worked.) Once in office, he continued to wage war for five more years, subverting negotiations to end the fighting, extending the war into Cambodia, and carrying out an unconscionable campaign of carpet bombing, among other travesties. We would do well to talk about the number of Vietnamese he slaughtered, but I’ll confine myself to a single emblematic indictment of his actions as they affected the American side:

Of the 58,000 US dead in Vietnam, 41,000 came on Richard Nixon’s watch….well after the national security apparatus had concluded that the war could not be won, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers. When it finally suited Nixon and Kissinger to make peace with Hanoi in 1973, they got the exact same terms LBJ had been offered in 1968.

For that I will never forgive Richard Nixon and neither should anyone else who ever wore the uniform  of the United States military, or lives under the flag for which it fights.


That same criminal megalomania is on ample display in “Slow Burn,” and nowhere more so than in the very first episode, which tells the story of Martha Mitchell. In the immediate aftermath of the break-in, the famously outspoken Mrs. Mitchell was held prisoner in a hotel room and drugged to prevent her from talking to the press—on orders from her own husband no less, the attorney general, who eventually went to prison for his role in the scandal. She managed to speak out anyway, for which she was subjected to a campaign of character assassination that would look very familiar to anyone who has watched Team Trump go after its enemies. (The goon whom John Mitchell employed to hold her hostage, a former FBI agent named Steve King, is now Trump’s ambassador to the Czech Republic.)

In that episode of “Slow Burn” there is a clip from the famous 1977 David Frost interviews in which a voluble Richard Nixon muses that if not for Martha Mitchell, Watergate would not have ever come to light, at least not as the presidency-ending scandal it became.

What’s eye-popping about this comment isn’t just Nixon’s incredible arrogance and continued disregard for the enormity of his own crimes, although that is certainly appalling. Only three years removed from his ignominious departure from the White House, there he sat—tan, rested, and ready—blithely talking about the worst political scandal in US history (to that time) as if it were a parking violation. Having barely dodged impeachment and perhaps prison, he was still acting as if he were the one who had been treated unfairly, as if Watergate were not his doing but some natural disaster, or some minor inconvenience rudely foisted on him by a pesky press.

What was really instructive about that remark, however, was what it says about his pardon.

There can be little doubt that a backroom deal was struck with Gerald Ford to pardon Nixon in exchange for the Vice Presidency, and eventually the Presidency itself. (Earlier in “Slow Burn,” Ford figures in the story as a leader in the Republican sabotage of Texas Congressman Wright Patman’s early attempts to “follow the money.”) Ford explained the pardon in terms of sparing the country further pain, which is not a rationale that many criminals have successfully used to dissuade the authorities from prosecuting them. (“Yes, Your Honor, I killed and ate all those door-to-door salesmen, but must the country suffer further by putting me on trial?”)

It was a transparently dishonest explanation. But for every American citizen who was outraged that this miserable bastard got away with his crimes, there was another who agreed that the pardon was “for the good of the country” in avoiding additional trauma and divisiveness,…..or more probably, had internalized those rationalizations out of partisanship. (Ford of course paid the price in November 1976, and rightly so.)

I bring that up with an eye toward the ultimate fate of Donald J. Trump. Assuming he does not annihilate all human life in a global nuclear holocaust, or extinguish the light of American democracy by suspending future elections and staying in power for life (which many Republicans would support), someday Spanky will be out of office. It may be in chains at the hands of Robert Mueller, it may be in a humiliating defeat in 2020, it may be in triumph (gulp) after two terms, or it may be feet first if the Big Macs and Diet Cokes kill him while he’s watching “Hannity” in the Lincoln Bedroom, but one way or another he’s going. And unless it’s that last scenario, his crimes will follow him into his post-presidential life, as will the possibility of prosecution for them.

There is a vague consensus—but not a settled matter of law—that a sitting president cannot be indicted for ordinary crimes, that impeachment is the proper constitutional mechanism for his or her removal, after which he or she may be prosecuted (or not). That assumption has never been challeneged in court, but it soon might be. Unfortunately for us, with a shameless crook like Trump, that incentivizes him to stay in office as long as possible, utilizing the power of the office and executive privilege to help him fight like the cornered rat he is.

But when Trump finally goes, however he goes, surely there will be people who will say, “Let’s put it behind us.” Right wingers will take that position for obvious reasons, like Nixon’s dead enders before them. But many progressives—breathing a sigh of relief—may simply be so glad just to have the Very Stable Genius gone that they will have no stomach for holding him to account in the way that justice demands.

But to listen to Tricky Dick casually speculate to David Frost about what a shame it was that Watergate ever came to light is to feel the full force of the injustice of Nixon’s escape. The man simply had no regret, no compunction, no sense of guilt, no recognition of how lucky he was that he didn’t end up hung by his heels Mussolini-style. (Oh, and three weeks after being pardoned, he sold the rights to his as-yet-unwritten memoirs for $2.5 million dollars. 1974 dollars, I hasten to add.)

Does anyone doubt for a New York second that Donald Trump, in similar circumstances, would be just as blithe and arrogant? Not to get out too far over my skis, as the cliche goes, but contrary to the claim that removal from office would be punishment enough, it’s my humble opinion that our country would be best served if Donald Trump is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for once in his absurdly entitled life. It is no less than he—and we—deserve.

As many have noted, in the end it was the willingness of Nixon’s own party to hold him accountable for his crimes that sealed his fate. Thus far, we have seem absolutely no sign of a similar integrity on the part of the contemporary GOP—very much the contrary, in fact. And that, more than anything else, appears to be the most relevant difference between the Nixon and Trump eras, and the one that is most worrying. It is unnerving to think that we might one day look back on Watergate as the more minor scandal, when some semblance of non-partisan principle and integrity carried the day—the Great War overshadowed by World War II—compared with what followed.

As I was fond of writing at the end of my lazily composed undergraduate term papers, only time will tell.



“The Modern World Starts Here”—The Birth of Silicon Valley

Narinder Singh

In case it’s not already clear to you from every single thing in modern life, the impact of microprocessor technology on human history is akin to that of the printing press, and is probably making the wheel and fire nervous. (If it’s not clear, you can get an app for your phone to remind you.)

Husband-and-wife filmmakers Michael Schwarz and Kiran Kapany of Kikim Media—headquartered in the heart of the tech industry, in Menlo Park, California—tackle this history in their new stellar three-part series for the Science Channel, Silicon Valley: The Untold Story, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The tale is a very personal one for Kiran, whose father, the physicist Narinder Singh Kapany—pictured above—who emigrated to Northern California from India via England in 1960, is often called “the father of fiber optics.” (If you’ve ever had an endoscopy, you should thank Professor Kapany: it used to be a lot worse.)

As longtime residents of the Valley who labored over this sweeping and deeply thoughtful documentary series for many years, Schwarz and Kapany surely did not expect it to air in the midst of a massive public scandal involving the tech community. But the issues on the front pages today are informed by the story they tell in this documentary. It is essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand the DNA of the place at the very heart of modern innovation, not merely in tech but across the spectrum of human experience.


In Schwarz and Kapany’s series, Satjiv Chahil, formerly senior vice president of Apple, says that Silicon Valley is to our world today “what Florence was to the Renaissance—the epicenter of a global cultural change.” Denizens of the Valley are prone to such pronouncements, but they aren’t wrong.

The series places Silicon Valley in the context not just of the history of science and technology, but of all of American history, painting an eye-opening portrait for the tech world layman. Dipping back into the pre-history of modern tech, it contextualizes Silicon Valley amid the gold rush of California in the 1840s (prefiguring the gold rush redux of the dot com boom) which first attracted “dreamers, visionaries, and rebels,” setting a tone that lives on to this day. Similarly, it connects the Information Superhighway with its metaphorical forerunner, the railroads where Leland Stanford made his fortune, which fittingly led to the creation of the private university that bears his name, which in turn midwifed the late 20th and early 21st century revolutions in both hardware and software.

Schwarz and Kapany highlight the “ecosystem” of the Valley and the unique combination of factors that conspired to create ideal conditions for the incubation of modern computer technology. To tell that tale they touch on the stories of numerous iconic companies that sprung from this fertile ground, including Hewlett-Packard, Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel, Apple, Facebook, PayPal, What’s App, Atari, and Airbnb, this last of which owes its success in part to Barry Manilow’s drummer. (You’ll have to watch Episode 3 to understand why.)

Says Schwarz: “Scholars who study the region have long used that term to describe it, because much like an ecosystem in nature, Silicon Valley has evolved over a long period of time and has a number of interconnected elements that collectively help sustain it and enable it to thrive. Take any one away and the rest probably won’t do quite as well.” Among the diverse forces in play were the needs of the locally-based aerospace industry; the research going on at Stanford (which deliberately encouraged students to start companies outside the university); the fact that non-compete clauses are in illegal in California; even the generally freespirited ethos of the Bay Area and the legacy of the Haight-Ashbury era.

HP garage

The Hewlitt-Packard garage in Palo Alto, CA

Many of the values we now associate with the tech industry were first promoted by Hewlett-Packard, the Palo Alto-based company that arguably started it all in the 1930s. HP’s crewcut engineers in old black-and-white photos aren’t the image immediately conjured by the words “Silicon Valley,” but Bill Hewlitt and David Packard were visionaries responsible for much of the ethos that defines the Valley to this day, the most impactful of which was their sheer wisdom and generosity. Rejecting the usual paranoia, Hewlitt and Packard actively encouraged their underlings to strike out on their own, arguing that it’s OK to change jobs, it’s OK to fail, and that cross-pollination serves the greater good and benefits all—veritable mantras in Silicon Valley to this day.

Famously, HP was started in the garage of a house at 367 Addison Avenue in Palo Alto—now a state and national landmark—creating the original prototype and ur-myth of all garage-birthed tech giants, as if they were rock & roll bands. As the author Michael Malone says in the series, “I really think the modern world starts right there.”

The stories of the misses are just as fascinating as the hits. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak loved working at HP so much that he begged them to buy the first Apple machine that he built. HP passed five times. Xerox had the vision to create the famed Palo Alto think tank Xerox PARC, from which emerged such innovations as the mouse and the Alto personal computer that was the forerunner of the Macintosh. But Xerox’s top leadership—fixated on its lucrative copier business—failed to see the full potential of computers and let the golden goose get away.

Even the great ones had their off days. Nolan Bushnell, the visionary founder of Atari and inventor of Pong, had in his employ a 19-year-old Steve Jobs (who taught Atari’s staff how to solder), but passed on a chance to own a third of Apple for $50,000.

(For fictional depictions of the tech world, both tragic and comic, see AMC’s Halt and Catch Fire and HBO’s Silicon Valley, for my money, the funniest comedy on television today.)

There are darker stories as well. One of the most fascinating subplots in the Science series is that of William Shockley, the Nobel prize-winning physicist and co-inventor of the transistor, whose scientific achievements are tarred by his racist belief in eugenics. It seems no coincidence that Shockley’s repulsive politics go hand in hand with his Captain Queeg-like management style— the polar opposite of HP’s progressive mindset—a style that drove out superstar employees who went on to start a half dozen landmark companies that made the Valley what it is today. (Shockley once subjected all his employees to lie detector tests over his fervent belief that a cut finger suffered by a secretary was deliberately arranged by a saboteur within the company.)


MS and KK

Kiran Kapany and Michael Schwarz, producers, Silicon Valley: The Untold Story

Silicon Valley: The Untold Story rejects hagiography as it dives headlong into the industry’s embarrassing record on diversity, one that has barely improved over the past twenty years. It bravely documents the overwhelming white male-ness of Silicon Valley and indeed the whole tech community—notwithstanding the strong presence of Asian and Asian-American engineers—even as that community ostentatiously prides itself on being a meritocracy. In that sense, the tech world makes for an apt avatar of a widespread delusion in America at large. The series likewise explores the endemic sexism of the industry, from the early role of female “computers”—see also Hidden Figures—to its own version of the Rosie the Riveter phenomenon, with comments from legendary female pioneers like Kim Polese of Marimba and Heidi Roizen of T/Maker and Apple (who describes how she cleverly jiu-jitsued that very sexism into a marketing ploy).

Belying another beloved myth, Schwarz and Kapany also show how decades of US government funding and tax dollars subsidized and nurtured the tech industry, disabusing us of Silicon Valley’s treasured self-image as a paragon of rugged individualism and a triumph of unfettered capitalism. The resistance of many of today’s tech companies to governmental regulation and their sanctimony on the alleged superiority of the free market betrays their ignorance of their own history. Neither the cheerleaders for Milton Friedman-brand laissez faire economics nor megalomaniacal tech entrepreneurs themselves—who prefer a narrative in which they are freestanding iconoclastic geniuses who went it alone—like to admit it, but Silicon Valley as we know it simply would have been an impossibility without massive public financing, principally via defense contracting.

Schwarz again:

World War II spurs a big increase in government funding of university research. After the war a much bigger chunk of that money goes to the engineering school at Stanford, largely thanks to the Cold War and the efforts of Fred Terman, its Dean of Engineering. But in 1957 the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union comes as a nasty shock. It’s no coincidence that the US government sets up NASA a year later—and NASA takes over a government aviation lab in the Santa Clara Valley that runs the world’s biggest collection of wind tunnels. NASA is intent on getting to the moon first, but you can’t build rocket ships with vacuum tubes. So it becomes what Paul Saffo describes in our film as an early adopter—“someone who is happy to pay way too much for something that doesn’t quite work”—and spurs improvements in the technology for integrated circuits made with silicon, which give the Valley the name we know it by today.

 The military industrial complex’s insatiable Cold War need for technological innovation is one of the great ironies in the genesis of Silicon Valley, and its impact was both large and small, institutional and coincidental. On the former count, of course, we owe the Internet itself to DARPA. (With a special shout-out to the Jesuit priest and polymath Teilhard de Chardin, who conceived of what he called the “noosphere” back in the 1920s.) On the latter, Schwarz and Kapany recount how Steve Wozniak’s father worked at the Santa Clara Valley-based Lockheed factory that made the Polaris missile, which is how Steve got four hundred “defective” transistors—rejected for cosmetic deficiencies—to use as switches in the development of the original Apple computer. And so, the production of weapons meant to deal death and destruction in a thermonuclear war accidentally gave birth to technology that transformed the world in a way that now seems an inevitable part of the march of “progress”….or at the very least, transformation.

That said, the ways in which tech and the Internet can themselves be weaponized and turned to nefarious ends have been recently quite evident. At the end of episode two, Silicon Valley: The Untold Story even presciently addresses the very privacy issues roiling us in the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandals.


Among the series’ most fascinating stories is that of inventor and engineer Doug Engelbart, who envisioned both modern computing and the Internet as far back as the mid 1960s. Ironically, Engelbart drew inspiration from the pioneering work in hypertext and analog computing done by Vannevar Bush, who during World War II had overseen the Manhattan Project and the creation of the atomic bomb. Few at the time could really comprehend the tectonic implications of Engelbart’s work, which featured a new vision of the computer as not merely a number-crunching machine but something that could deal with text, images, audiovisual material, and could—and this is the crazy part—talk to other computers. As Paul Saffo puts it in the series, Engelbart was offering “ten-speeds for the mind at a time when we were building tricycles.”

As a longtime devotee of the IBM Selectric typewriter, I remember the first time I really grasped the concept of the “word processor” (in 1989—I was a bit late to the party). It was like taking acid, or the moment when The Wizard of Oz turns from black-and-white to color, or hearing the drum break in “In the Air Tonight” for the first time. Having been genetically attached to my word processor ever since, I’m not sure how anyone wrote anything before its invention, at least not beyond a first draft. If you think Dickens and Dostoevsky are longwinded as it is, imagine if they’d been able to cut and paste.

Five years after that, in 1994, I started grad school at Stanford— sadly for my net worth, in the documentary film program, not engineering. I was nonplussed that all of the university’s administrative actions—course selection, communication with professors, posting of grades, etc—were done electronically. I’d never even used email before; at that time relatively few people had. It was so new that my email address was Bob@stanford.edu. (Not even “Bob1.”)

In the summer of 1995 I actually took a graduate school course at Stanford in how to search the Internet.

I’ll repeat that:

I actually took a course, for graduate credit, on how to search the Internet.

That was in the days of Lexis/Nexis, when that task was tedious and complicated and unreliable. At that exact same time, across campus in the aforementioned engineering department, two grad students named Sergey Brin and Larry Page had just met and begun work on a project to improve that search process, which led to the creation of a private company that you might have heard of. It starts with a G, and is synonymous with a number containing 100 zeros, which coincidentally is roughly its current valuation in US dollars.

Like Apple, Brin and Page at first tried to license their innovative technology to others, and spent a year doing so with no luck, before they decided to start their own company. (I can only presume that the VCs who passed on what would become Google are now Facebook friends with the record executives at Decca who passed on the Beatles in 1962.) That same summer I worked at restaurant/bar in Palo Alto (the Blue Chalk Café, for those who care, or remember) and was at the door checking IDs the night Netscape went public. Its staff—all newly minted millionaires, on paper—rolled into the joint like drunken Vikings, Revenge of the Nerds-style, no doubt imagining that they would rule the Internet search world forever. Ah, good times.

Like Jobs and Wozniak, and Engelbart before them, Brin and Page had created something so far ahead of its time that it took the rest of the world a while to catch up. What they realized, in the words of author Michael Malone, was that “the ability to search for knowledge is the transformative event of our era.” It’s hard to argue.


Another salient point Schwarz and Kapany make in their series is one that ought not need stressing, but in the current political climate, clearly does.

A third of Silicon Valley’s population is foreign born; more than half its engineers are. Even in a country built on and by immigrants, the tech world stands as a shining example of the value and vigor immigrants bring to this country, from Sergey Brin to Elon Musk, Jerry Yang, Andrew Grove, Jan Koum, Andy Bechtolsheim, Vinod Khosla, Narinder Kapany, and—going further back in their families’ histories—Jobs, Wozniak, and just about everyone else including even the odious Dr. Shockley himself (who as far as I know is not Native American). In addition to the other factors that made the Valley the perfect habitat for the tech explosion that occurred there, arguably no other country on Earth has the immigrant tradition that would allow for this welcome phenomenon.  Of course, the same is true of almost everything that’s happened in the United States of America full stop since about 1607, but that’s a topic for another day.

Says Kiran Kapany of her family’s experience:

When my father came here in 1960 to found his first company, Optics Technology Inc., there were few other immigrants. And here’s my father, a Sikh with a turban who didn’t cut his hair at all, and a full black beard and mustache. He was initially funded by Don Lucas of Draper, Gaither & Anderson and then later by the executives of Hewlett-Packard and Bank of America. Tom Perkins of Kleiner Perkins ran the business side of OTI. These folks were some of the greats of the Valley. No one saw my father as an “immigrant”: he was an inventor, a visionary making a huge contribution to the world.

I would like to propose legislation banning the likes of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and the rest of the build-the-wall America Firsters from using any technology invented by immigrants. Guys: we’ll send some folks around to collect your cellphones and computers, and you can go back to mimeographing your neo-Nazi leaflets and passing them out in pawn shop parking lots. (Oh wait, the mimeograph was invented by foreigners too.)


By its very nature, technological innovation always presents itself as beneficial to mankind—what we call “progress.” In the series, anthropology professor Jan English-Lueck calls Silicon Valley “almost the crystallization of this dream of progress.” Of course, many observers, from Thoreau to Ted Kaczynski, take issue with that notion.

Kaczynski—himself a product of the late Sixties techno-academic world of Berkeley, by way of Harvard, Michigan, and CIA experimentation—is no one’s idea of a hero, but his critique of technology in the so-called Unabomber Manifesto—properly known as “Industrial Society and Its Future”—is sobering and filled with cogent arguments…..at least right up to the part where he concludes, “And that’s why I had to kill people.”

One salient critique of much of current cutting edge tech is that it represents exactly what privileged, single young people in the industrialized world—that is to say, the chief demographic of developers—would create. Facebook, Tinder, and Uber are applications that benefit that community. (For me, the ATM, GPS, and Shazam alone represent earth-shattering advances that have transformed my life, making me guilty of the same selfishness.) By contrast, fewer resources  and brainpower are being applied to thinking up ways to provide clean water for the Fourth World.

But it has always been thus. How many billions of dollars were devoted to developing Viagra and Rogaine instead of curing any number of diseases that cause untold suffering for millions? There is certainly money to be made in a cure for cancer, but probably more in a cure for baldness. (Note: the patriarchy at work.)

Even so, should our species survive, future generations may look back on those of us who lived through this era as having been the lucky witnesses to an epochal change in human history. But of course that same history shows that the very same potential for transformative good can be turned to equally nefarious ends. We feel it every day as we navigate this brave new world: most recently, in the Orwellian issues of privacy, governmental surveillance, and authoritarian control that have been at the heart of science fiction—and science fact—as far back as the Industrial Revolution. As noted above, the very parentage of the Internet—the love child of the Pentagon and California hippies—speaks to that dichotomy.

As a child of the Valley,  Kiran muses:

 I look back at those more peaceful days….what the elder statesman of Silicon Valley were doing compared to the young innovators of today. We are certainly moving away from the stability we had in the advancement of technology. You look at founders of silly apps becoming billionaires overnight, the lack of privacy, hacking into this site and that site, the value of AI to our society, data mining and the risk to democracy thanks to companies like Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Palantir. Would that have happened had those early pioneers in the Valley had today’s technological tools? I’d like to think there were a stronger set of morals and ethics at that time, but who knows?

In closing, I would simply like to say that I wrote this on a computer, and if you’re reading it, you are surely online.

You can close the pod bay doors now, Hal.

Only Nixon Could Go to China….But Nixon Was, Like, Smart

Trump socialitst realism - flattened

When I first heard that Donald Trump had agreed to meet in person with Kim Jong-un, I assumed it was just to get parade advice.

I have been very hard in these pages on this administration’s North Korea policy. (See ‘Round Midnight and An End to Nuclear Fairytales.) In fact, I would put “policy” in quotes, as my chief criticism is that there ain’t no policy per se, just a seemingly random, often self-contradictory careening that baffles friends and foes alike. And this pattern shows no signs of being some calculated Nixonian “Madman Ploy” but rather, genuine madman-ness, featuring belligerence (“fire and fury”), juvenile namecalling (“Little Rocket Man”), and Freudian overcompensation (“My button is bigger than yours’) heretofore unheard of at the presidential level. Is America great again yet?

But now that Trump has accepted Kim Jong-un’s invitation for a face-to-face meeting to discuss the DPRK’s nuclear program, the question is: did it work after all?

It’s a fair inquiry. In a situation this fraught it’s hard for anyone, especially Democrats and other progressives, to reject dialogue and diplomacy, which after all is what we were asking for in lieu of Trump’s schoolyard bullying and game of nuclear chicken. If Obama had agreed to such talks we would have probably cheered. (And the right would have screamed “weakness!” and “treason!” But of course, they screamed that even when Obama tied his shoes.)

So I will be rooting for Trump to succeed.

Did I really need to write that? Should I be rooting for him to fail and for the situation to get worse? Of course not. Only the worst kind of partisan scum would hope for an outcome that hurts the United States (and indeed the whole human race) just out of spite for an opposition president. Know what I mean, Mitch McConnell?

So if this summit results in positive forward progress on defusing the crisis in Korea, I will happily eat crow and give Trump credit. (OK, not happily, but I will do it.)

But there are a lot of things to wonder and worry about before that happens, starting with the question of whether this summit will even take place, and if it does, whether it will be a feather in Trump’s red baseball cap or one of the biggest, most unfathomably stupid blunders in the history of American foreign policy, prompted by a certifiable moron who has no business running a popsicle stand, let alone the United States government.

For the moment, I’m leaning toward the latter. This latest development seems not so much a validation of Trump’s reckless style in relation to North Korea as it is another jawdropping example of it.


To the casual observer, it looks like Trump got tough with North Korea and drove them to the bargaining table. That is certainly how the Donald sees it. True to adolescent form, he has bragged that he has managed to get this face-to-face meeting with the Dear Leader, something none of his predecessors could do. But that’s like Bush bragging that no previous president was able to bring the Twin Towers down.

Pyongyang has been trying to get an American president to meet with their head of state for years; the only thing Trump has done is become the only one stupid enough to take the bait. Is it possible that he did not realize that was the history and context of the DPRK offer?

Just kidding. Of course he didn’t.

The Very Stable Genius walked right into the North Koreans’ incredibly obvious trap, in what the conservative foreign policy writer Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called a “a head-snapping display of incoherence.” In so doing he demonstrated the patent disadvantages of a commander-in-chief who thinks he knows everything, boasts of ignoring the counsel of experts, and has no patience or attention span or intellectual curiosity (or sense of duty) that might motivate him to read the briefings that are carefully prepared for him on such matters. Trump is a stunning living embodiment of the Dunning–Kruger Effect, too dumb even to know he’s dumb.

As Robin Wright notes in the New Yorker, typically, when negotiating with a hostile foreign power, a summit meeting with the President of the United States would be the culmination of that process, not the beginning of it. It’s a reward, with obvious intrinsic value, not the sort of thing you want to carelessly give away at the very start of the dance in exchange for nothing in return. (See also: moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.)

Now, you might say, “Trump is breaking the mold! He’s thinking outside the box!” Hmmmm, maybe. As nothing has really worked before, maybe the bold and unorthodox idea of a summit can jump-start the peace process. Maybe. But that line would be more convincing if there was any evidence that this was a calculated strategy and not merely trademark seat-of-the-pants transactional hip-shooting by the improviser-in-chief. (Wright’s piece provides a concise summary of the long and complicated history of American efforts to thwart North Korea’s nuclear program, the complexity of which contextualizes just how wanton Trump’s action was.)

If Trump meets with Kim, North Korea will get everything it has always wanted. It will be seen as a world power. Its head of state will stand side by side with the President of the United States, as equals, in photographs distributed around the globe that will live forever. And above all, the wisdom of its nuclear ambitions will be confirmed, sending a dangerous message to all other aspiring nuclear powers. Hard to see how any of that advantages the United States, or the cause of global stability, or in any way represents genius grade Kasparov-style maneuvering.

It’s true that in the short run, between now and when talks take place (if in fact they do), the promise of a summit reduces the risk of a nuclear exchange, which is always welcome. But in the long run, it could do more harm than good. The aforementioned Mr. Boot favors a hardline on the DPRK and opposes high level talks full stop, on grounds of the North’s bad faith in the past and repeated acts of provocation. He writes: “Trump has agreed to meet Kim, giving the worst human-rights abuser on the planet what he most wants: international legitimacy. Kim will be able to tell his people that the American president is kowtowing to him because he is scared of North Korea’s mighty nuclear arsenal.”

Ironically, by agreeing to this meeting, Trump has validated the very reason Pyongyang sought the Bomb so relentlessly. Saddam Hussein wanted it, didn’t get it, and instead got the US 3rd Armored Division rammed up his ass. By contrast, Kim Jong-un, in possession of nuclear weapons, gets treated with deference and respect and gets a state visit from the POTUS. In effect, Trump is rewarding North Korea for its efforts, signaling to other tinhorn despots that their atomic ambitions are similarly advisable.

Is it any wonder so-called “rogue nations” seek the Bomb?


I have argued strongly that diplomacy, not idle threats of fairy tale force, are the path forward on non-proliferation, so in theory these proposed talks should be welcome. Silly me for not stipulating that the diplomacy should be clever, not stupid.

With his characteristic loose cannonism, Trump accepted Kim’s initiation impulsively and without consulting any of his top foreign policy advisors, who were all caught flatfooted, as their subsequent Russell Wilson-like scrambling attests. Now their idiotic boss has put them and the entire United States in a box, squandering whatever leverage we held after decades of deliberate—if frustrating—gamesmanship with Pyongyang.

Bargaining with Kim may be realpolitik, and as I have argued before, preferable to the fantasy that we can use military force to stop nuclear proliferation, but it doesn’t really jive with Trump’s tough talk and his adolescent “I alone can fix it” mentality.  The decision speaks to Trump’s childish desire for grand, sweeping gestures that outdo his predecessors (especially Barack Obama), a trait that in this case threatens the global stability of the entire world and millions of human lives. In that sense, it’s less a reversal of his simpleminded “fire and fury” approach than another side of it.

Circling back to a point at the top of this essay, as Rachel Maddow and presidential historian Michael Beschloss mused on TV, imagine if Obama had announced he was meeting with the North Koreans. Fox Nation would—at best—be howling over America’s capitulation, if not openly making dark rumblings about where the President’s true loyalties lie. (See here for a tidy summary of Fox News’s shameless double standard on this issue in particular.)

OK, OK, this whole “imagine if Obama” trope is getting old—even though it’s undeniably true—and we should not be surprised at partisan hypocrisy, especially from the modern Republican Party. A more legitimate argument is the old maxim that “only Nixon could go to China.” That is, only a leader perceived as an unapologetic hawk would have the credibility to take such a initiative. (I was gonna say “unimpeachable hawk,” but reconsidered.)

Trump’s actual effectiveness as a hawk is highly questionable—see my post Surrender of the Hawks—but he certainly positions himself that way, and his followers and even some independents perceive him as such. (To a lesser extent, the same was true of Nixon, in terms of whether he was actually advancing American security or hurting it.)

But here’s the rub.

Nixon was, like, a smart person, as Donald himself might put it. His surprise visit to China was a strategic masterstroke, the culmination of months of careful diplomatic engagement, preparation, and planning, engineered by the reliably conniving team of Nixon & Kissinger—two horrific human beings, but formidable political thinkers. Every angle of the maneuver was cautiously considered and debated, And once set, Nixon went into those meetings thoroughly prepared and briefed, not to mention bringing with him decades of political and foreign policy experience. Like him or loathe him, Nixon was undeniably a smart (and tough) cookie.

Cadet Bone Spurs, not so much.

In fact, there is some question whether he even knows the difference between North and South Korea.

So a president without an iota of Nixon’s skillset and experience and also eschewing any kind of prep is gonna go in and face off with a ruthless foreign dictator, no matter how callow?

What could go wrong?


The North Korea summit is the exact kind of situation that makes Trump supporters howl: “You liberals won’t give the President credit for anything, even when it’s something you support!”

Not so. It’s simply that this development is not what he claims it is, and in fact may be quite the opposite in terms of benefit to the United States. Even if the agreement to meet with Kim were not a mind-boggling concession by a US president, the question of how Trump will handle the meeting looms terrifyingly large.

After ridiculing the carefully crafted Iran deal throughout the presidential campaign and all the way into office, what makes Trump think he can strike a better bargain with North Korea? As David Sanger writes in The New York Times:

(I)f Mr. Trump pulls out of the Iran deal, Mr. Kim may well wonder why he should negotiate with the United States if a subsequent president can simply pull the plug on any agreement…

“The ironies abound,” said Robert S. Litwak, the director of international security studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars and the author of “Preventing North Korea’s Nuclear Breakout.” “The man who wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ has staked out a position that the Iran deal was the worst one in history,” he added. “And now he has to show that he can do much better, with a far harder case.”

While he will have to negotiate a deal with the North Koreans that is even stricter than the Iranian one that he has denounced as naïve, insufficient and dangerous, that task will be made all the harder by the fact that Pyongyang, unlike Tehran, actually possesses nuclear weapons.

“If the president gets the North Koreans just to stop what they are doing, and perhaps get a timetable for future action, that would be a huge step in slowing the North Koreans’ program,” said Christopher Hill, who negotiated the last major deal that the United States had with North Korea, under the George W. Bush administration. “But it still wouldn’t be close to what Iran agreed to do.”

It scarcely needs mentioning that Trump fancies himself a negotiator par excellence; indeed, that is a huge part of the wool he pulled over the American electorate’s eyes in November 2016. But as we have seen since, it is an utter joke. Trump might actually be the worst negotiator in US political history. He was unable to get his own party to agree on repealing Obamacare, its signature goal for the past nine years. He has mucked up every Congressional negotiation and other legislative action into which he has insinuated himself. Yes, a radical tax bill was passed on his watch, a massive Christmas gift to the 1%, but it passed largely in spite of—not because of—his efforts.

And this guy is gonna get Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons?

Unlike Nixon, Trump not only ginned up this whole kooky idea on a whim, but will almost surely go into the meetings basically winging it. God knows what he’ll say or do. Given his habit of talking tough and then bending over (see Xi Jingping), he might give away the store, a possibility enhanced by his overt and disturbing admiration for dictators, and his tendency to agree with the last person to whom he spoke. Boot again: “Kim may offer to give up his nukes if the United States will pull its forces out of South Korea and sign a peace treaty with the North. Trump, if confronted with such a scenario, may imagine it is a big ‘win’ for him, but that’s only because he knows nothing of North Korea and has no one at a senior level in his administration who does.” Conversely, Trump might lose his infamous temper and start a fight, as he did on the phone with the prime minister of Australia before he even took the oath of office. If he can’t get along with the fucking Australian PM, how do you think he’ll get along with Kim Jong-un? (Maybe great, birds of a nutsy cuckoo feather and all.)

Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine what the US could offer that would incentivize North Korea to truly give up its nuclear program. Yes, the country is literally starving and is in desperate need of aid. But as long as it can get patronage from China and Russia and play off them off the US, which they seem happy to do given the incompetence radiating out of Washington, that may not be enough. I am skeptical that anything will do the trick, as obtaining the Bomb is what brought the US to the bargaining table in the first place. For her New Yorker piece, Robin Wright spoke with Frank Aum, a former senior adviser on North Korea in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, who makes that very point:

Given the history of diplomacy and North Korea’s current capabilities, there may be nothing that convinces the regime to give up its bombs or missiles. “We may get back to negotiations,” Aum told me. “The issue is how do we overcome the fundamental problem of whether North Korea really is willing to denuclearize, and, if so, at what cost? And is the U.S. willing to meet all its terms? The answer seems to be no. If we gave North Korea everything it wanted, it still wouldn’t denuclearize, because nothing guarantees your security more than a nuclear weapon.”

There is even debate over precisely what “denuclearization” means to each side. Even the supposed promise itself has only been relayed secondhand, by South Korea’s national security adviser, not formally offered to the US by the DPRK. And the US and the ROK have good reason to be leery of each other’s motives and honesty.

If Trump comes home with no real concessions from Pyongyang, all he will have done is look like a chump while giving Kim the photo op of a lifetime. He will also have destabilized the situation, leaving military conflict more, not less, likely—another reason not to jump to head-of-state level negotiations so quickly. As East Asia expert Victor Cha writes, “Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy.” (Cha, of course, had been nominated by Trump to be the US ambassador to South Korea before withdrawing over policy differences—namely, his objection to Trump’s ill-advised threats of force.)

In fact, the odds that Trump will return with a serious non-proliferation agreement are rather long. There are many more plausible outcomes, like Trump and Kim getting into a slapfight, or as Michael Che says, realizing that they actually love each other, like in the movie Stepbrothers. Or maybe the Trump we get back will be an imposter (see the little-known “Nixon Substitution Scenario”). Or maybe Pyongyang will pull an Otto Warmbier on him, or entice him with prostitutes and golden showers and poach him away from the Kremlin to be their puppet from now on. We shall see.

Speaking of which, how does the Warmbier family—who have made a point of criticizing the Obama administration’s actions and of announcing their allegiance to Trump—react to this president making nice with the regime that brutalized and effectively murdered their son in the cruelest and most inhuman way imaginable? Perhaps they will rationalize it, as so many Trump supporters rationalize everything this cretinous fake president does. But that does not change the nature of what is being proposed. So much for Civis Americanus sum.


Above all it’s important to bear in mind that the whole summit may never even happen. The Trump administration has already backed off the Fake POTUS’s impulsive RSVP, hastily and retroactively attaching preconditions that Pyongyang must meet, including “verifiable” steps to denuclearize including access by foreign weapons inspectors—all things the US has long demanded before any such meeting could occur and that DPRK has repeatedly refused to do. As there is little reason to think they will do them now, this face-saving ploy amounts to a total negation of Trump’s reckless gesture, which was surely the intent. I suspect that no sooner did word hit the wire of what their boss had done than McMaster and Mattis and Tillerson began madly looking for a way out, and this is what they came up with. It’s a modern day version of the Baruch Plan.

Later, with the consistency characteristic of this slapstick administration, deputy press secretary Raj Shah reversed course again, stating that all North Korea has to do is refrain from further atomic testing in the interim and not make its usual fuss over joint US/ROK military exercises. It’s not clear Pyongyang will do even that much, of course, though they might if they were smart, given the potential reward, and the fact that those measures can be easily reversed.

If it is indeed the case that those are the only requirements, it’s even dumber on the United States’ part. Not that he is ever averse to wantonly breaking a promise or telling a lie, but it is not hard to imagine that Trump’s ego—his desire to go through with what he sees as a triumph, at all costs—is trampling both strategic considerations and common sense.

But of course, ol’ Rex is off the hook now, which must come as a relief to him, with differences over North Korea reportedly one of the key reasons for his termination by the Fucking Moron-in-Chief. (As Morrissey wrote, “Rejection is one thing, but rejection by a fool is cruel.”) Tillerson’s dismissal is part of a wider shakeup at State and beyond; reports now are that McMaster will be next to go. No surprise there. Does it make sense to conduct such a large scale purge on the eve of a major diplomatic maneuver like this one? Perhaps, if the intent is to create a team with a communal vision and not one riven with infighting. But when that vision is a stupid one, that’s a different story.

If the summit fails to materialize, it will just be more smoke and mirrors from the most screwed up administration in modern US history. But like the jobs at the Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana that Trump “saved” but turned out not to have saved, it won’t matter to his slavish followers, because just saying he is going to do something is enough for them even when he later reneges. If the summit does happen, it might be even worse. Either way, Trump will spin it as a victory and his myrmidons will nod vigorously in agreement.

To reiterate, if the summit actually happens, I will be rooting for Trump to pull this rabbit out of the hat, despite its ad hoc genesis and the dangers of ceding ground to Pyongyang. I hope he actually comes away with real and enforceable steps toward the DPRK’s denuclearization, or at least additional safeguards to ratchet down the DEFCON on the Korean peninsula. I will happily feast on humble pie if this careening clown car of an East Asia policy manages to inch us toward a safer world, even accidentally. But—spoiler alert—I’m not holding my breath.


Blood On Their Hands: Guns in America (Part 2)


Not surprisingly, last week’s post about gun violence, “Why Can’t I Own an M-1 Tank?,” elicited a lot of, uh, passionate responses, particularly from people I will respectfully call gun enthusiasts. Some of them were reasonable and informed and ready to engage in a rational debate; we generally disagreed, but we had a civil dialogue. But many others were sneering and insulting and had counterarguments consisting of little more than one-word critiques like “libtard!”

Of course, that mentality is part and parcel of the whole problem. The prevailing feelings from those folks were anger and paranoia…..and in case you were in danger of getting a good night’s sleep, let’s remember that these same people have guns. But of course, their anger and paranoia are often the reason they got those guns in the first place.

A lot of these correspondents reflexively deployed their standard “you’re obviously ignorant about firearms” retort, automatically presuming that no one on the other side could be an experienced soldier or well-acquainted with the smell of cordite. Confronted with someone who takes issue with their dogma but doesn’t fit the stereotype of a chablis-sipping liberal elitist, their cognitive dissonance is extreme and the flimsiness of their arguments is exposed. More tellingly, their much-professed respect for the military miraculously vanishes in favor of partisanship and vitriol (much the way our fake president’s does when he attacks Gold Star families, his own generals, or the US intelligence community).

These folks usually proceed from a snotty condescension based on a claim to superior knowledge or experience; deprived of that, they resort to repeating NRA talking points that are deliberately deceptive and frequently wrong. On the Constitution, their commitment to the “individual right” interpretation borders on the fanatic, and brooks no intellectual curiosity or willingness to listen to other points of view or historical research. Hard to have an intelligent conversation on that basis.

A surprising number focused—with no discernible irony—on how the real problem with owning a tank is that it would tear up the streets, or that it’s hard to get ammo, or similar logistical concerns, which suggest (in case there was a lot of doubt) that this is a group that really has trouble locating that elusive forest because of all those goddam trees. (Don’t worry—Ryan Zinke will soon cut them all down.)

And so it goes in the debate over gun violence. So this week, at the risk of incurring more wrath from Yosemite Sam Nation, let’s look at one of the most important dynamics at the core of the issue, which is the relationship between the NRA and the GOP.


Parkland may finally have broken the tedious regularity of politicians offering “thoughts and prayers” in response to mass shootings, instead of concrete action. We may at last be witnessing the long overdue end of that banal mantra, forced into retirement by long simmering outrage, frustration, and contempt for the utter hypocrisy of that emptiest of gestures. The Florida state legislature recently voted—narrowly—to ban bump stocks, raise the legal age for all firearm purchases from 18 to 21, and institute a three-day waiting period for most gun sales. (Under the previous state law, Nickolas Cruz was too young to buy a handgun, but old enough to buy an AR-15.) But it declined even to take up a proposed ban on assault weapons, and then turned around and passed a motion declaring pornography a “public health risk.” Stay tuned for Florida’s upcoming vote on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

That our elected officials are daring to take even small steps in defiance of the NRA is both heartening (journey-of-a-thousand-miles-wise) but also a chilling reminder of the power of the gun lobby. The usual formulation is to blame the NRA for flooding our political system with obscene amounts of money, and to blame politicians—largely but not exclusively Republicans—for accepting it, making them beholden to the gun lobby. But that’s an oversimplification that lets politicians off the hook.

Yes, the NRA uses the GOP, but the GOP also uses the NRA.

Republican politicians know that guns are a wedge issue they can use to lock down a fanatically passionate chunk of single issue voters who will reliably turn out every Election Day without fail and vote the party line. Accordingly, “beholden” is not the right term for the GOP‘s relationship with the NRA, as it implies duress. Republicans like being in league with the NRA.

It was not always thus. Hard as it now is to believe, the NRA legitimately began as what it now speciously claims to be: an innocent association of sportsmen and hunters. Ironically, the modern American gun control debate began with white panic over the Black Panthers arming themselves in the late 1960s. Only a few years before, after Lee Oswald assassinated John Kennedy with a mail order bolt action Italian rifle, the executive vice president of the NRA testified before Congress in favor of banning that weapon, which in terms of rate of fire is a peashooter by the standards of a modern assault rifle. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the NRA began its current political activity and adopted the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment, reversing 200 years of legal consensus on the matter. The GOP immediately recognized this a winner in terms of galvanizing its segment of the electorate. (Indeed, that may have been the motivation for the shift within the NRA in the first place.) But it was really in the 1980s that the Republican Party realized that it could leverage gun “rights”—like other hot button topics such as gay rights, abortion, and race—to drive reactionary voters into its arms.

The NRA’s CEO at the moment is the grotesque Wayne LaPierre, maybe the worst human being in American public life, which is saying something at a time when Donald Trump is in the White House. (The odious Stephen Miller is also a strong contender.) After Parkland, LaPierre gave an unhinged speech in which he portrayed efforts at gun control as the first step in a communist takeover of the United States. That, of course, is perfectly in line with the entire transformation of the NRA and its current function within the Republican Party.

Among the NRA leadership, LaPierre is continuing in a proud tradition. David Keene, the NRA’s president from 2011 to 2013, had a son who was sentenced to ten years in prison for brandishing a gun in a road rage incident. In 1981, the NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Harlon Carter, was revealed to have been convicted of murder as a teenager for shooting a another teenager in the chest with a shotgun.

Why almost all of the mass murderers in question are white males is far beyond the scope of this essay or my feeble expertise, but I’m hardly the first to suggest that if most of them were brown or black or Muslims, the GOP would be leading the charge for gun control in the US of A. (Ask the aforementioned Black Panthers.) But of course, an obsession with guns fits very well into the whole reactionary mindset, “the paranoid style” in Richard Hofstadter’s famous phrase, even as it co-exists in apparent dissonance with the law-and-order mentality. As Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times:

 (O)ur lethal inaction on guns, but also on cars, reflects the same spirit that’s causing us to neglect infrastructure and privatize prisons, the spirit that wants to dismantle public education and turn Medicare into a voucher system rather than a guarantee of essential care. For whatever reason, there’s a faction in our country that sees public action for the public good, no matter how justified, as part of a conspiracy to destroy our freedom.

Is it any wonder, then, that the NRA and GOP have made common cause, even if it is not altogether clear who’s using whom?


In the wake of Parkland, one particularly moronic proposal rose to the forefront of the national conversation on how to stop these mass murders, thanks to its championing by a particularly moronic president: that of arming schoolteachers.

This idea is so idiotic and ignorant—asinine is a word I’ve frequently seen used, and that seems about right—that the arguments against it don’t bear repeating in detail. (Why stop with the teachers, as Jimmy Kimmel noted; let’s arm the students too.) But as John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker, the issue “vividly illuminates the collective madness that beckons when you have an unprincipled man like Trump in the White House, the GOP in control of Congress and the majority of states, and a dogged refusal to do what practically every other civilized country does: introduce some meaningful restrictions on gun ownership.”

In a culture like ours where guns are so appallingly prevalent, it certainly—sadly—makes sense to have armed security guards at schools. But at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, there were FOUR (count ‘em, four) armed sheriff’s deputies were present, including one assigned to the school full time, and all of them cowered outside and the building and failed to do anything while Nikolas Cruz was on his killing spree. Yet Trump thinks paying bonuses and giving guns to “weapons talented” teachers is the answer? It’s an idea right out of the NRA playbook—the solution to gun violence is more guns. But it should hardly surprise us that the Very Stable Genius went right for it. How one man can reliably be on the wrong side of EVERY SINGLE ISSUE is pretty astounding.

The stupidity of this idea should have all been patently obvious even before a teacher in Georgia barricaded himself in a classroom and fired a shot from his privately own handgun just two weeks after Parkland. A popular Tweet by the comedian Tim Hanlon noted that the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, the most accomplished sniper in US military history and the subject of a hit movie by Clint Eastwood, was himself killed in a one-on-one confrontation with a handgun-toting mentally ill acquaintance. Hanlon tweeted: “So we just have to train the teachers a lil better than Chris Kyle.”

Of course, Trump characteristically boasted that, had he been on the scene, he wouldn’t even have needed no damn gun, as he would have gone in and disarmed that killer with his bare hands. It’s the kind of wolf ticket that would be met with ridicule even on a grammar school playground, let alone coming out of the Oval Office. But I’m glad to hear that his bone spurs have healed.

Yet, as idiotic as it is, the “arm the teachers” argument leads into a number of instructive points.

The notion that just having a gun makes you John Rambo is a consistent trope in the gun-loving community of armchair heroes and Wild West fantasists. But I can tell you as a former infantry officer, that the training, fortitude, and warrior mentality it takes to close with an armed enemy and destroy him by fire and maneuver is a skillset that infantry soldiers, special operators, and police officers take years to develop.

And given that Cruz had an ArmaLite, what does Trump suggest the teachers carry, an M-249 SAW? (Oh, and those teachers’ weapons are also supposed to be concealed somehow.) Numerous gun advocates argue that a semiautomatic pistol is just as effective as a semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15. If you’d like to get in a gunfight where you have a pistol—of any kind—and I have an AR, with its far greater accuracy, range, and muzzle velocity, not to mention a bottomless supply of 100 round Magpul magazines loaded with 5.56mm ball ammo, be my guest. It will literally be your funeral.

Another contention is that knowing that the teachers are armed would deter would-be school shooters. Of course, the presence of armed security guards does not seem to have deterred any of these guys, but whatever. The larger point is that a mentally disturbed individual like most of these mass murderers is not deterred by anything. They are by definition mentally disturbed, and most of them go into their killing sprees fully expecting to die. A trigonometry teacher with a Glock is not going to make them think twice.

Even more to the point, let’s posit for the sake of argument a school that is an armed camp, and a potential shooter who is therefore deterred from attacking. There are plenty of other softer targets to which he can turn. (And yes, the shooter is always a “he”). Are we going to harden every post office, every hospital, every office building, every McDonald’s, indeed every single public space in the country? Even if it were logistically possible, what kind of society would that be? A police state, essentially, which is the very thing that NRA / Tea Party / Trump types were highly vigilant about (to the point of hysteria) when a black guy was president. Now, not so much.

Which leads us to an even more disturbing aspect of this debate, circling back to its very origin.


In last week’s essay we discussed how the distorted “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment came to be, and to carry the day. But even under this radically wide interpretation of the Bill of Rights, there is plenty of reason to believe there can and should be limits on what weapons are allowed on the streets of the republic.

Many many observers have noted that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, “firearms” meant black powder muskets that had a range of mere yards, laughable accuracy, and took minutes to reload—not an M-16 with a cyclic rate of 800 rounds per minute. It’s hard to imagine that they meant to give the citizenry the right to own something with the astonishing killing power of a modern battlefield assault rifle, especially not if they were alive today to see the bloodbath to which such ownership has led. (Alexander Hamilton, of course, was himself the victim of a senseless shooting. If Aaron Burr had been armed with an AR-15 instead of a black powder pistol, they would have had to scoop up Hamilton with a spatula.)

Writing in the New Yorker Jill Lepore reports that in an amicus curiae submitted to the Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller (which affirmed the so-called “individual right” argument), fifteen eminent American history professors including two Pulitzer Prizes winners wrote:

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.”

At any rate, for those fixated on following the word of a group of 18th century Deists as if it were gospel, let us remember that the only people to whom the Bill of Rights applied when it was ratified in 1791 were white landowners, many of whom were slaveholders whose need for guns to maintain the captivity and servitude of their enslaved human beings was essential. Nine of our first eleven presidents—including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison— were slaveholders themselves. So perhaps we can dispense with the mystical “originalism” that seems to animate so many conservatives, including—dare I say—several members of the current Supreme Court.

(For more on the slavery issue, see the bottom of this essay.*)

In fact, in the current climate, it’s not unreasonable to ask whether we ought simply to dispense with all this legal debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment and just repeal it altogether.

Sacre bleu! I know we act like the Constitution is sacrosanct (sometimes), but there was a good reason that the Founders built in a mechanism by which to amend it. It is a living document, and that goes for the Bill of Rights too. I’m less worried about the people who want to repeal the Second Amendment than the ones who want to repeal the First.

If America was born in the original sin of slavery, then the Second Amendment is part of that, and there is no more reason to maintain it than there is to maintain—or restore—the “peculiar institution” that motivated it. (Don’t get any ideas, Stephen Miller.)

To take a less incendiary and more pragmatic tack, as I noted last week, many gun enthusiasts argue that banning AR-15s or similar rifles makes no sense as it still leaves lots of equally dangerous—or nearly as dangerous—rifles, pistols, and other firearms still on the market. That’s plenty debatable, but OK, fine: let’s concede that. All the more reason to repeal the Second Amendment full stop.

I realize that in saying this I am treading into dangerous territory that might hurt my own cause. The notion that gun control advocates all secretly want to get rid of the Second Amendment and “take away your guns” is the central motivating fear for many gun owners, and for that reason the hysterical fearmongering at the heart of much of the NRA’s propaganda.

Needless to say, repeal is a very hard row to hoe—if we can’t ban bump stocks nationwide, do really think we can shitcan the whole Second Amendment? But as laid out last week in the first part of this essay, there would be no need to repeal it if we would simply reject the twisted interpretation that now holds sway—that a “well regulated militia” formed to defend the country from invasion somehow equates to the right of private citizens to own assault rifles—and come to our senses.

But as long as the NRA and GOP distort that amendment and hide behind its shameless mischaracterization to prevent the implementation of common sense gun laws in this country, repealing it ought to be on the table, if only to provoke rational debate.


In closing, may I just ask, what the hell is wrong with America? I don’t recognize it any more.

How long are we going to let our country be held hostage and repeatedly brutalized and bloodied just to indulge the juvenile fantasies of a bunch of pathetic, overgrown boys who can’t get over their inferiority complexes? How long are we going to let the right wing plutocracy exploit that demographic in order to maintain its chokehold on our republic?

The madness of the American obsession with guns has always been with us, but the proliferation in civilian life of battlefield weapons made for no other purpose than to kill human beings as fast as possible has lately brought that madness to new depths. It is especially soul-wrenching in the context of the election of the most monstrous and counter-qualified president in American history, and with him, the brazen re-emergence into daylight of intractable racism, the validation of misogyny (even as a backlash arises), the abdication of American leadership abroad; the outright deceit over taxes and wages and labor; the shameful turning of our backs on the poorest among us we lavish further gifts on the richest; the celebration of xenophobia and betrayal of America’s immigrant heritage as we deport Dreamers and talk of building pointless and impossible walls; and perhaps above all, the triumph of propaganda and an increasing lack of concern for objective reality and the simple truth.

These are difficult and complex problems. But gun violence, ironically, for all the passion it inspires, is not really one of them. It ought to be easy. There are common sense solutions about which reasonable people can agree. Will we at last do the right thing and fix this literally life-and-death problem? Or will history look back on us someday and, mystified at our stupidity, conclude: that country got what deserved?


Yosemite Sam illustration: IrishManReynolds

#JillLepore, #JohnCassidy, #PaulKrugman, #PedroHenriquesdaSilva, #TimHanlon, #DahliaLithwick, #BillPilon, #Parkland, #gunviolence, #NRA, #BoycottNRA, #paranoidstyle

*Some dispute the claim of slavery being at the heart of the Second Amendment, though the Venn diagram overlap of the American South and gun fanaticism ought to settle the matter. But you care to dive into it, here are three articles with divergent opinions on the subject:

The Origins of Public Carry Jurisprudence in the Slave South

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The Second Amendment Was Not Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Further reading:

Battleground America by Jill Lepore, The New Yorker

The Lost Amendment by Jill Lepore, The New Yorker

To Keep and Bear Arms by Garry Wills, The New York Review of Books

The Second Amendment Hoax by Dahlia Lithwick, Slate

How the Gun Lobby Rewrote the Second Amendment by Cass Sunstein, Bloomberg


Why Can’t I Own an M-1 Tank?

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 12.52.16 PM

What is there left to say about the madness of guns in America that hasn’t already been said? Probably nothing, for all the good it has done. It has gotten to the point where just hearing it all again is a kind of nauseating kabuki, a macabre version of Groundhog Day in which our noses are rubbed in our refusal to do the common sense thing, even at the price of the blood of our children.

But in the endless, grim parade of firearm-driven mass murders, this latest massacre in Parkland, FL seems to offer a glimmer of hope that this time it might be different…..that just maybe we have reached the proverbial tipping point and might at last see real reform that will stop this insanity. To that end, let me offer what I hope is a slightly fresh perspective, one that draws on my history as an infantry and intelligence officer.

I have plenty of experience with firearms. My father taught me to shoot as a boy and my military instructors taught me a lot more. I know what these weapons can do to a human body. My father was shot up with an assault rifle in Vietnam—an AK-47—and would certainly have died if not for the heroism of the medics and combat surgeons who saved his life. Fifty-three years later his body still bears the wounds; it looks like he was bitten by a great white shark.

No sane person—even those who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment—can plausibly argue that there is a compelling reason why such weapons belong in the hands of ordinary citizens on the streets of America. Polling reveals that a strong majority in this country agrees. I would like to believe we are now at a critical moment when we can take this most basic and obvious step toward simple reason.

So why haven’t we?


We begin with what are, apparently, the most incomprehensible words in the entire United States Constitution: “well regulated militia.” As in, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The obvious interpretation is that the Founders were talking about a military force under the control of the state at a time when the very idea of maintaining a standing army was controversial. That was the reading that the US Supreme Court affirmed in the 1939 case US v. Miller, which was the law of the land for decades. But beginning in the 1970s, the so-called “individual right” interpretation began to gain support in right wing circles, so much so that by 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the conservative-dominated Court affirmed the bizarre contention of gun activists that this phrase somehow enshrines the right of private individuals to own firearms.

Far be it from me to say that the esteemed jurists of the Supreme Court were flat wrong, but then again, that same institution also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, and Citizens United. Even before that decision, former Chief Justice Warren Burger described that interpretation of the Second Amendment as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

This sub-topic is a bottomless well of debate in its own right, so let’s leave it to the side and just deal with the situation with which we’re faced, in which private possession of firearms is constitutionally protected. The question then becomes: what, if any, limits should there be on such ownership?

The position of hardcore NRA types is: none.

Their reasoning is chilling.

Many gun enthusiasts argue that the Second Amendment was deliberately intended to ensure that the general public is equipped to mount an armed insurrection should the government become tyrannical. (Tyrannical by whose measure is left ambiguous, which is a pretty slippery goddam slope.) This interpretation too has been a matter of contentious debate. What isn’t, it seems, when it comes to guns?

For starters, once again, it’s not at all clear what that language in the Second Amendment means. The 18th Century context of the term “bear arms” is in dispute, and not necessarily synonymous with “own firearms” as we understand it today. Similarly, “the security of a free State” logically refers to defense against threats from without, not from the state itself, as it’s unlikely that the founders of the United States would have built in a mechanism for its self-destruction. In his seminal 1995 essay on the matter, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” Garry Wills writes:

Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which is treason by constitutional definition. Yet the body of writers who proclaim themselves at the scholarly center of the Second Amendment’s interpretation say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government.

But others contend that that is precisely the sort of thing those men—who had just overthrown British rule—would do, citing Jefferson’s famous line that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” a slogan popular on t-shirts that also feature the Confederate battle flag.

The insurrectionist argument plays into the rugged individualism of the foundational American myth with which many Americans flatter themselves, especially in conservative circles. So again, if only for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that it is correct.

By that logic, private citizens should have access to all the weapons needed to engage in sustained combat with the United States military, the most powerful and technologically advanced armed force in human history.

So why can’t I own an M-1 tank?

If your argument for private ownership of firearms is the capability to overthrow the government, that capability ought to include not only semiautomatic assault weapons like the AR-15, but also fully automatic ones like the M-4A1 carbine, belt-fed crew-served weapons like the M-60 machine gun, 20mm Vulcan anti-aircraft gun, TOW anti-tank missile systems, and 155mm howitzers.

I’m sure there are some Second Amendment extremists that would be cool with that. Most Americans, however, recognize the downside of turning the United States into a free fire zone where every citizen, every family, every business is a private mercenary army ready to shoot first and ask questions later. To my knowledge, not even the NRA advocates private ownership of attack helicopters, bomber planes, and nuclear weapons. If we recognize that it is unsafe, unworkable, and undesirable for private citizens to have military-grade weaponry, why does that preclude an M-1 tank but allow for an AR-15? So—lunatic fringe excepted—if we all agree that there should be some reasonable limits on ownership of weapons, the next question is: what should those limits be?


The ArmaLite rifle we’re talking about is a combat weapon designed and intended to do one thing and one thing only: kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield as efficiently as possible. No federal court has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right of private individuals to own that sort of combat weapon. For a ten-year period, 1994 to 2004, there was a federal ban on them that was subsequently allowed to lapse. Even now they are illegal in many states. But in the states where they are not illegal, Americans—many of them children—have paid a heavy price.

There is no credible hunting application for a weapon like this. The recreational value of sport and target shooting with an assault rifle can’t begin to outweigh the proven dangers of their ready availability in the general population. (Alternatively, stringent regulations, licensing, registration, and training could be put in place for sport shooters wishing to own this kind of firearm, as they already are in some places. Tragically, not in Florida, though.)

Few people in the United States live in such dire conditions that they can plausibly claim self-defense as a reason for needing an assault rifle, and as it happens, few of the people who legally own these weapons live in those places. Even then, there are other weapons—shotguns, pistols, bolt action rifles—sufficient for self-defense that don’t present the public safety problems that AR-15s, AKs, and Uzis do. (The resort to frontier-style self-defense and the rejection of reliance on professional law enforcement is another aspect of all this—more on that in a bit).

But self-defense is not really the argument assault rifle fans make for ownership of their weapons. Their case is the standard NRA opposition to any restriction on firearms. They like guns. They want to own combat weapons. They don’t care about the carnage they cause to innocent people. And here’s the kicker:

Powerful political forces in this country have leveraged that venal, pathological fanaticism and—if you’ll pardon the expression—weaponized it to create a lethal tandem in which American citizens routinely get murdered in order to perpetuate an anti-democratic stranglehold on power. It is a vicious symbiosis unlike anything I can think of in American history.


I’ve had a few arguments with some of these gun nuts, and they usually come at it with an extremely patronizing, self-flattering attitude in which they are the hardnosed realists—the “sheepdogs.” It’s not unlike the mentality many of these same people have when it comes to foreign policy. And as with foreign policy, their arguments are usually full of shit, light on logic, and heavy on their image of themselves as macho tough guys to whom the rest of us weak-kneed bleeding hearts are insufficiently grateful. I think they’ve seen A Few Good Men a few too many times, yet never quite grasped that Jack Nicholson was the bad guy.

There are plenty of simple, common sense things that we could do to stop these horrific killings, none of which would infringe on the right of any law-abiding citizen to own a firearm. You may have noticed, however, that our elected officials are reluctant to institute even the most mild of these measures.

In refusing to act, these politicians— overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, Republican, and supported by arguably the most politically powerful lobby in the country, the NRA—make a variety of arguments, but let’s start with their leadoff hitter: the insistence that prevalence of guns is the not the problem.

This is the biggest, most disgusting lie in the entire gun violence debate, and the one from which all the other toxic arguments flow. The United States is the only industrialized country on Earth where mass murders like this happen with such sickening regularity, and the outrageous ubiquity of firearms in the US—alone among First World countries—is the only distinguishing factor that could possibly make it so.

The NRA and its amen corner in the GOP—or is it the other way around?—would have us believe that mental health is the problem. What an absolutely despicable, dishonest canard. Other countries have mental health issues but don’t regularly have these massacres because there’s one thing we have in shocking abundance that they don’t. Three guesses what it is.

Jill Lepore of the New Yorker, who has written more eloquently on this topic than anyone I can think of, writes: “The United States is the country with the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. (The second highest is Yemen, where the rate is nevertheless only half that of the US.) No civilian population is more powerfully armed. Most Americans do not, however, own guns, because three-quarters of people with guns own two or more.”

(For my money, the best single survey of the entire history of guns in America and our current state of affairs remains Lepore’s 2012 New Yorker article “Battleground America,” from which that quote is taken.)

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 4.04.55 PM

Statistically, mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators of it. Even if mental illness were the main factor—or to the extent that it legitimately factors into this debate at all—does it make sense to address only that aspect of the problem, and not anything else? Of course not. Even Republicans don’t really seem to believe that mental health is the problem, since Donald Trump rescinded the Obama-era restriction limiting the ability of people who have been diagnosed with mental illness to purchase firearms.

Let’s go over that again.

Trump made it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns.

So much for Republican credibility—and sanctimony—on that point.


The other arguments of the NRA and GOP (can we just refer to them as one giant poisonous organism, the NRAGOP?) are just as uniformly absurd.

One is that it’s hard to define an “assault weapon” and that banning one model, like the AR-15, will still leave plenty of others on the market.

Uh, so we shouldn’t ban any of them?

It would not be difficult to draw legislation that prohibits weapons and ammunition with certain characteristics, such as high capacity magazines, or cyclic rates or muzzle velocity above a certain threshold. Fully automatic weapons, silencers, and hollow point ammunition are already banned in most places (even as people like Donald Trump, Jr. lobby for those laws to be rescinded). As the gun industry inevitably finds ways around these laws with its usual evil genius—exhibit A: bump stocks—new legislation could be introduced to plug the loopholes. Is that so hard?

We could also make it less criminally easy to buy guns of all kinds, which would no more violate even the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment than the existence of the DMV violates the privilege of driving a car. We could institute reasonable waiting periods and mandatory background checks; raise minimum age requirements; close the private sale (aka “gun show”) loophole; require stricter (or at least some) registration, licensing, and safety training; restore the aforementioned restrictions on access to firearms for the mentally ill, convicted felons, and others, and so forth and so on. It stands to reason that it should not be easier to get a gun than to scuba dive, but right now not even suspected terrorists on the no-fly list are barred from buying firearms, which is lunacy. In some parts of America even being blind won’t prevent you from buying a gun.

In response, the NRAGOP often says that any kind of gun control legislation is pointless because criminals, by definition, will always go around the law.

By that logic, why have any laws at all? The point of legal restrictions on guns, or anything else dangerous, is to make it harder to commit such heinous acts, not to serve as a panacea. (You thought I was going to say “magic bullet,” didn’t you?) We recognize that laws alone do not make criminal actions impossible. But to throw up our collective hands and say, “Oh well, what can you do?” is ridiculous.

Oh, and by the by, the Parkland shooter didn’t have to go around the laws: he bought his AR-15 perfectly legally. If there had been legal obstacles that made it harder for him to have done so, might he have circumvented them and found another way to get an AR, or to kill in some other way? Maybe. But why should we free him from the need to do even that?


Moreover, even if it were true that stricter gun laws would leave only criminals committing gun crimes, that would itself be a major improvement over the status quo in which an appalling number of Americans are killed by accidents, suicide, and homicide—usually by friends or family members—often in arguments that would have ended much less violently if a gun weren’t handy.

Might those altercations still be deadly, knife to a gunfight-wise? Sure. But would you rather be stabbed or shot? I’ve known a few people who’ve been stabbed: a high school classmate slashed in the neck at the Dairy Queen in Hinesville, Georgia; a college fraternity brother stabbed trying to thwart a burglary; one of my soldiers in Germany who was stabbed in the heart by his wife. All of those people had to be rushed to the hospital for medical care. But all of them lived.

This past Halloween here in New York City, a lone wolf who self-identified with radical Islamism murdered eight people and injured eleven others on the West Side Highway using a rental truck as a weapon, mimicking a technique widely used by terrorists in the Middle East and Europe (and by a neo-Nazi in Charlottesville). Following that attack, as if vindicated, gun nuts were quick to chortle, “See? If you take away their guns, they’ll find something else to kill with! Cars or knives or boxcutters!”

Exactly. Please note that the Halloween terrorist used a common rental truck, not an M-1 Abrams main battle tank. If he’d been driving a tank, he undoubtedly would have killed a lot more people. But he could not get a tank. Because that is illegal. Because it would be fucking nuts if we allowed private citizens to own tanks.

That is the precise analogy we are dealing with in terms of firearms. A mentally ill killer wielding a knife or even a pistol—let’s make it a semiautomatic 9mm Glock—would not be able to kill nearly as many human beings as Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, did with his NINETEEN long guns and assault rifles, some outfitted with bump stocks to turn them into fully automatic weapons, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. So, yeah, if we take guns out of the hands of potential killers it won’t stop every mass murder. But it would stop a lot of them and reduce the number and severity of causalities in most others. No one is arguing that the common sense gun control laws currently being debated would put an absolute end to firearms deaths. But they would damn sure help, as they would undeniably make it harder for killers to kill. That should not even be a matter of discussion or disagreement, at least not among people with brainwave activity. Because to do nothing because we can’t do everything is not only stupid and self-destructive but actively dishonest and despicable.


Next week, part two of this essay, in which we discuss the Very Stable Genius’s proposal to arm teachers, the symbiosis between the NRA and the GOP, and the future of the Second Amendment.

Photo:  http://tactdb.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-great-game-m1a2-abrams-vs-t-90am.html

Chart:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

#JillLepore, #Parkland, #gunviolence, #NRA, #BoycottNRA, #GarryWills, #DahliaLithwick, #CassSunstein

Further reading:

Battleground America by Jill Lepore, The New Yorker

The Lost Amendment by Jill Lepore, The New Yorker

To Keep and Bear Arms by Garry Wills, The New York Review of Books

The Second Amendment Hoax by Dahlia Lithwick, Slate

How the Gun Lobby Rewrote the Second Amendment by Cass Sunstein, Bloomberg



Surrender of the Hawks

Vlad and Donny horseback 2

One of the most mind-boggling things about the Trump presidency is the effect it has had on US foreign policy hawks. This is a group that, while not 100% Republican, certainly skews heavily that way. It is also a group that has traditionally been Russophobic in the extreme. Yet even as they watch this president eagerly serve as an obsequious bootlicker for Vladimir Putin, a great many self-described hawks remain firmly in Trump’s camp, in defiance of almost every conceivable explanation save one, which I will get to shortly.

But first, let’s conduct a little recce of this bizarre situation.


Though I don’t condone it, I can at least understand why certain other single issue voters made the Faustian decision to throw in with the Very Stable Genius. A great many evangelical Christians, for example, have said they held their noses and voted for a man who in both person and policy defies just about everything Jesus Christ is supposed to stand for, because they felt he would at least defend their interests. Their rationale does not make a lot of sense, hinging as it does on a pathological hatred for Hillary Clinton that is unsupported by facts, but at least it is a rationale, however flawed. (And, of course, not all evangelicals needed to hold their nose. Many of them were and are in full-throated support of the entire Trump agenda, a phenomenon previously discussed at length in these pages.)

Another such group would be mainstream Republicans desperate to put an archconservative in Merrick Garland’s seat on the Supreme Court at any cost. (And yes, I do mean Merrick Garland’s seat, not Antonin Scalia’s. It damn sure isn’t rightfully Neil Gorsuch’s.)

The plutocracy’s willingness to support Trump is equally understandable, if despicable. A great many members of the 1% are well aware of the trainwreck that is the Cretin from Queens, but clearly are willing to put up with all of it—the payoffs to porn stars, the governance-by-Twitter, the general destruction of presidential norms—for the sake of their pocketbooks. The GOP tax scam that was rammed down American throats in the dead of night last December may have justified their calculus. It’s absolutely amoral, avaricious, and venal, not to mention of questionable logic (requiring one to overlook the long term damage it is likely to do to the American economy, the additional $1.4 trillion in debt, and the deleterious effects of further turbocharging inequality in these United States), but at least I understand the motivation.

However, the same Faustian bargain cannot be said to apply to foreign policy hawks. In each of the aforementioned cases there is an obvious tradeoff: get behind this troglodyte, with all his manifest shortcomings (if that stuff bothers you), in exchange for support for your pet issue. I get it.

But what do foreign policy hawks get out of supporting Trump? Everything the man does in that realm is an absolute disaster for America’s security, global credibility, and influence in the world.

He has shaken the foundations of NATO and alienated our staunchest allies with idiotic “America First” rhetoric while lavishing praise on autocrats from Erodgan to Xi Jingping to Duterte; moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock as close to midnight as they have ever been with his juvenile, genocidally reckless goading of North Korea; served as ISIS’s best possible recruiting sergeant with his volcanic Islamophobia; boasted of non-existent carrier groups, calling into question the Pentagon’s ability to read a map and diluting future threats of force; embarrassingly botched the aftermath of the Niger ambush; pointlessly given away the bargaining chip of a US embassy in Jerusalem in exchange for nothing; jeopardized our best hope for containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions by treating Teheran the same way he historically treated Atlantic City contractors; and repeatedly undermined his own staff, from McMaster to Tillerson to Sessions, creating a climate of chaos that makes the world question whether anything said by a representative of the US government won’t later be undercut by its head of state. To name just a few.

In Politico, Susan Glasser writes:

Over the course of the year, I have often heard top foreign officials express their alarm in hair-raising terms rarely used in international diplomacy—let alone about the president of the United States. Seasoned diplomats who have seen Trump up close throw around words like “catastrophic,” “terrifying,” “incompetent” and “dangerous.” In Berlin this spring, I listened to a group of sober policy wonks debate whether Trump was merely a “laughingstock” or something more dangerous. Virtually all of those from whom I’ve heard this kind of ranting are leaders from close allies and partners of the United States.

Simply put, Trump’s criminal negligence of US national security ought to horrify hawkish Republicans more than anyone else. In the assessment of Richard North Patterson, “No foreign enemy could have degraded America’s global standing so completely in so short a time.”

Of course, there are some hawks who would disagree that these were errors, and who enthusiastically back Trump’s national security agenda (to the extent that the ad hoc day-by-day whims of a raging adolescent can accurately be described as any kind of coherent “agenda”). But at the risk of being patronizing, these people cannot be taken seriously. Sure, there are mouthbreathing jingoists who think we ought to “carpet bomb ISIS and take their oil” (let me know how that is possible), or that we can magically stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions merely by bullying them, or that we ought to give our longtime NATO partners the middle finger and go it alone. But none of these are cogent foreign policy positions held by credible thinkers in the field or merit dignifying with serious debate. Even those respectable hawks who support some of Trump’s foreign policy stances—a hardline on Iran, for instance—admit to grave misgivings about his geopolitics at large. No serious military thinker I know believes that taunting Kim Jong Un to the brink of nuclear war will bring about a positive solution to that problem, or that a Lindbergh-rides-again approach to NATO is helpful, for example.

But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to stipulate that this laundry list of national security disasters are in fact all good ideas, there remains one area where Trump’s foreign policy runs absolutely contrary to decades of deeply entrenched conservative orthodoxy. And that’s the place with the furry hats.


For at least seventy years, from 1945 to 2016, no single issue united and inspired American conservatives more than unrelenting enmity toward Russia. (Longer in fact, if you start the clock from the Russian Revolution, suspended only temporarily—and grudgingly—in order to join forces against the Nazis.) Even during that brief period of uncertainty from the fall of the USSR in 1991 to Putin’s assumption of power in 2000, the hawks repeatedly warned that Russia was not to be trusted. Hatred and suspicion towards Moscow are the north star of right wing American politics.

Somehow, however, that same right wing is now totally cool with Donald J. Trump subordinating the interests and security of the United States of America to the interests of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation.

It is impossible to plausibly deny that he is doing so. Aside from a few minor digressions that had no appreciable impact, like the feckless and largely symbolic missile strike on Syria last April, at every turn Trump has taken Russia’s side. From sowing discord within NATO, to changing the Republican platform to support a pro-Russian position on Crimea, to returning two Russian spy houses that the Obama administration took away, to declining (without comment) to renew sanctions against Russia that passed Congress with a resounding 517 to 5 vote, to—the capper of them all, in my humble opinion—personally handing over top secret codeword intel to Sergei Kislyak and Sergey Lavrov, face to face, right there in the Oval Office, Trump has been a strong candidate for Kremlin Employee of the Year. (In that last example, Kislyak and Lavrov themselves looked shocked, as if thinking, “It can’t be this easy.”)

At the center of all this, and most glaring of course, has been Trump’s refusal to acknowledge—let alone take action to punish and prevent—Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

Trump has shown no interest in investigating this matter. None, nada, zero, zilch, bupkes. On the contrary, in fact: he has flagrantly done everything presidentially possible to thwart a proper inquiry into Russian actions, to the point of shameless, almost mind-blowingly overt obstruction of justice. From Flynn to Yates to Comey to Sessions to Mueller, that obstructionism needs no recitation here. (We can just want for the indictment.)

Just last week he ignored the anguished pleas of his Department of Justice and FBI (and he does view them as “his own”) and declassified the outrageous Nunes memo as part of an ongoing smear campaign to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller, while blocking the release of the Democratic rebuttal, hypocritically pleading (of all things) “national security concerns.” The man truly has no shame. Most recently, he took umbrage at Mueller’s damningly detailed indictment of 13 Russian nationals involved in ratfucking the election, and took to his favorite platform, Twitter, to attack his own National Security Adviser, active duty Lieutenant General HR McMaster, for failing to—falsely—stress to our European allies—that Russia played no role in Trump’s victory.

And this dereliction of duty is not only Trump’s. Unlike the fake president, Ryan, McConnell, and other GOP mandarins have been savvy enough to pay lip service to condemning Russian meddling—quelle horreur!—but tellingly have done none more about it than he has, which is nothing. It is within their power to act, of course. They don’t need the POTUS to tell them to set up an independent commission to look into it, a la the 9/11 Commission; they could very easily do so on their own. We’re still waiting.


All this should outrage the hawks, particularly the wanton denigration of the US intelligence community and law enforcement, which the right normally fetishizes. (Denigration is putting it mildly—it’s more like an outright attack that would have made Nixon blanch.) Yet it doesn’t. What happened to the Torquemada-like tenacity that gave us the endless taxpayer-funded Benghazi hearings?

Pardon the tedious repetition, and at the risk of stating the obvious, imagine if Hillary had fired the head of the FBI looking into her collusion with a foreign power, tried to fire the special counsel doing the same, got caught repeatedly lying about contacts with the Russians, attacked the Attorney General and the DOJ for not “protecting” her in such deceit, pressured the heads of the CIA and NSA to publicly exonerate her, and on and on, all the while engaging in policy actions and pronouncements that benefited Moscow. (Not to mention refusing to release her tax returns even as evidence mounted of her shadowy financial entanglements with Russian oligarchs, mobsters, and their associated government contacts.) If Clinton or Obama had engaged in even a fraction of this behavior Fox Nation would be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches—bought from Lowe’s—with the hawks leading the charge.

Of course, not every hawk has been so blind. Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, George Will, and many others have been passionate and outspoken opponents of Trump. So have many retired military officers, and, in their own way, even some active duty brass. (A special shout-out to MG [Ret.] Paul Eaton, for demolishing Trump’s demand for a Red Square style parade in his own honor.) But they are the exception and not the rule.

Consider also this tidbit from Washington Post writers Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe, and Philip Rucker, in their sweeping survey of Trump’s failure to safeguard the US electoral process, about the ways in which the Intelligence Community has had to alter the Presidential Daily Brief to suit the current chief executive: “US officials declined to discuss whether the stream of recent intelligence on Russia has been shared with Trump. Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update—known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB—is often structured to avoid upsetting him.”

So the most important, high level, top secret briefings in the world have to be bowdlerized to assuage the ego of the monstrous manchild we inexplicably made our leader?

Dear Republicans: Don’t ever preach to me about patriotism and national security again.


Our intelligence chiefs have called Russian interference in the 2016 election an act of war a par with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. And the President of the United States does not care. He certainly isn’t doing anything to investigate it or prevent it from happening again. As Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times: “It’s as if George W. Bush had said after 9/11: ‘No big deal. I am going golfing over the weekend in Florida and blogging about how it’s all the Democrats’ fault—no need to hold a National Security Council meeting.’”

Put very simply, Trump is wantonly refusing to execute the most basic duty of his office: safeguarding the security of these United States. Needless to say, that is an absolutely indefensible, appalling abdication of presidential authority, violation of the oath of office, and arguably an impeachable offense. (Yawn. What isn’t these days?) If that isn’t grounds for his removal, I don’t know what is.

In their WaPo piece, Miller, Jaffe, and Rucker further report that Trump’s aides continue to assert with a straight face that the sum total of their boss’s opposition to the Russiagate inquiry is that “the idea that he’s been put into office by Vladi­mir Putin is pretty insulting.” You get the sense that somebody in the White House has decided that the best defense against charges of collusion is for people to believe that the self-proclaimed Very Stable Genius is a merely a narcissistic simpleton who can’t deal with the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote, a juvenile egomaniac who lacks the capacity or imagination to have done anything as sophisticated as conspire with a hostile foreign power.

While he is certainly a narcissist, a simpleton, and a juvenile egomaniac, none of that lets him off the hook. It also fails to account for all the sucking up he did toward Putin during in the campaign and his continued inability to say a bad word about him ever since. It’s not as if Trump is usually at a loss for a well-timed insult.

Obviously, one reason Trump and the GOP are loath to stop, or even acknowledge, Russian interference is that it benefits them at a time when they are fighting a losing battle against demographic trends. If you’re going to gerrymander, suppress the vote, spread lies about voter fraud, and disenfranchise huge swaths of the electorate, why not take the Kremlin’s help too? Or did you think that was a red line for a party as principled as the GOP? David Frum writes in the Atlantic:

Trump continues to insist that he and his campaign team did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. We know that they were ready and eager to collude—that’s on the public record. (“If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”) The public does not yet know whether the collusion actually occurred, and if so, in what form and to what extent. But in front of our very eyes we can observe that they are leaving the door open to Russian intervention on their behalf in the next election. You might call it collusion in advance—a dereliction of duty as grave as any since President Buchanan looked the other way as Southern state governments pillaged federal arsenals on the eve of the Civil War.

Per above, for some Republicans and other right wingers, this deal with the devil might make Machiavellian sense. (We’ll leave right and wrong out of it.) But for foreign policy hawks animated primarily by Russophobia, colluding with Russia to gain political power does not make a lot of sense when your chief goal is defeating Russia.


It says a lot that the most innocent explanation for Trump’s constant water-carrying for Vladimir Putin is his admiration for the kind of strongman he personally yearns to be.

Let that sink in a moment.

That we the people have put such a person in the Oval Office is jawdropping but as the kids say, I can’t even.

The same may be true of some hawks, even the Russophobes, in the same way that fundamentalist Christians suspiciously share many qualities (anti-modernism, militarism, misogyny, theocracy, and the like) with their own sworn enemy, radical Islamists. Yes, some on the right recognize much that they admire and indeed aspire to in Putin’s Russia: authoritarianism, the illusion of strength, a slavishly complaint state-run media, institutionalized kleptocracy for the benefit of a few, and perhaps above all, a fascist-style racist appeal to the white volk (or more appropriate for Russia, narod). That is especially true of white nationalists, and not coincidentally, of our Insane Clown President himself. He has made that abundantly clear.

But of course, the $64,000 question is whether there is something far more sinister at the heart of Trump’s inexplicable fealty to Russia—which is to say, blackmail. That blackmail might be as salacious (and yet simultaneously as prosaic) as the vaunted pee-pee tape, or as complex as the Trump Organization’s byzantine financial entanglement with the octopus of Russian business interests, organized crime, and Putin’s gangster kleptocracy, which are all pretty much one in the same. The latter is all but undeniable and has already been well-documented; even more damning information is likely to emerge. The former may or may not exist, but in light of the other, does it really even matter? Donald Trump quite plainly is in thrall to the Kremlin for one reason or another. His infantile refusal to acknowledge Russian meddling and take countermeasures only reinforces the very impression he is desperate to avoid—that he is Moscow’s pawn— which leads any thinking person to believe that that is undeniably true. So what’s worse: a President so vain that he won’t admit reality, or one who truly is in the Kremlin’s pocket? It could be that we are saddled with a POTUS who is both.

Indeed, Trump’s kowtowing to Moscow is so shameless, so blatant, and so without even the pretense of camouflage that it beggars fiction. No double agent in a respectable spy novel would ever behave in such an obviously guilty way. And before you Trump defenders howl, “Exactly!,” let’s remember that from condemning Al Franken for sex crimes to attacking Barack Obama for golfing too much, Donald J. Trump has time and time again proven himself to be impervious to both irony and common sense.

Don: Can you at least PRETEND to be outraged? Make a show of it, if only to throw off suspicion! Did you miss that day at KGB Mole School? (Out sick with bone spurs, perhaps.)

Presumably we will someday get to the bottom of Trump’s man-crush on Putin and eagerness to turn the United States into a satellite state of the USSR 2.0, and the fallout from that promises to be epic. (If not, God help the republic.) In the mean time it is all but impossible to deny the gobsmacking destructiveness and criminality of what he is doing.

Yet continue to deny it the hawks do.


As there seems to be no practical benefit to the willingness of hawks to stand by Trump, the phenomenon can really only be ascribed to one thing: blind, pathological tribalism run absolutely amok.

Trump is a Republican (now), and Republicans fancy themselves the hardnosed party of national defense, as opposed to those weak-kneed peaceniks over in Democrat country. (History begs to differ, but never mind.) Even by Republican standards Trump goes above and beyond in talking the talk of simpleminded macho “solutions” to complex foreign policy issues, a kind of jingoism that is appealing to hawks who fail to think critically about what is really being said. Allegiance to their tribe has (er) trumped even their hatred of Russia, resulting in intellectual gymnastics and mind-boggling ideological contortions that would do a yogi proud. But their tortured rationalizations don’t hold a milliliter of water. (Apologies for using the metric system, America Firsters!) They simply identify with a certain brand of tough guy posturing that Trump represents, and cannot accept, or perhaps even see, its hollowness, factual inaccuracy (sometimes called “lies”), and con artistry.

The last possible explanation that can be offered is one that takes this tribalism into account: that in sticking with Trump, warts and all, they maximize the influence of their faction for the future, simply by hurting the ideological opposition. That, for starters, is an incredibly immoral kind of Alice in Wonderland calculation, along the lines of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” (a fitting analogy in this case). But its real flaw is that it is apt to be completely wrong, considering the amount of damage Trump is doing and that the United States is expected to sustain for the sake of some future partisan advantage. It’s more likely that the hawks’ “brand” will be so permanently discredited by association with this soulless third rate con man that they will have no influence whatsoever going forward.

The hawkish right seems to be in a kind of mass denial about what Trump is doing to America’s security. Whatever the reason for that mysterious malady, these people have forfeited whatever claim they once had as hardnosed pragmatists and critical thinkers. And if Trump proves to be actively complicit in a covert Russian coup d’etat in the United States, they will be guilty of something far worse.

If the Republic survives this monstrously counter-qualified excuse for a commander-in-chief who has almost singlehandedly devalued the global stature of the United States, if we don’t all die in a global nuclear holocaust, or devolve into a tinhorn banana republic-style autocracy (which we already are beginning to resemble in ways that would have been unthinkable even eighteen months ago), what will a post-Trump United States look like? Will we have sacrificed so much credibility and influence that we become a geopolitical afterthought in the shadow of China and others? Will our NATO partners ever trust us again? Will aspiring nuclear powers like Iran ever again engage in non-proliferation negotiations without fear that the US will do an inexplicable about-face? Will potential allies look elsewhere for security partners they deem credible, competent, and honorable?

Some of that damage is already done. Simply in electing Trump (Russian interference notwithstanding), America’s reliability as a geopolitical leader—not to mention our general sanity—is in question in deeply disturbing ways. Of course, we are far from the only country ever to succumb to demagoguery, authoritarianism, and neo-fascism. But this current outbreak does not help our reputation. The only question is how much damage has already been done, how much more will be done before Trump finally goes, and to what extent it can be repaired.

In the wake of this deeply ironic Presidents Day, let us stop and marvel at what a tragic distance we have come from leaders who deserve the name to this reprehensible cretin who serves only his own monstrous ego, and goddam the rest of us.

A Spark Is Lit: A Conversation with Alix Kates Shulman (Part 2)

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 4.24.59 PM

This week, the second part of my conversation with author and activist Alix Kates Shulman, one of the most prominent figures in second wave feminism, who has been on the front lines of the fight for equal rights and social justice for more than 50 years.

At a time when the United States has a president* in the White House who brags of sexual assault, and the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements have put feminism back at the forefront of the national conversation, Alix’s perspective has never been more apropos.

(For Alix’s full bio, see Part 1 of this conversation, “Feminism in the Age of Monsters,” or the bottom of this post.)


THE KING’S NECKTIE: We were talking last time about the importance of “consciousness raising” in the feminist movement. On the one hand, I would say, “If you’re a woman, how can you not be a feminist?” For that matter, how can any human, male or female, not support equality, but let’s leave that aside for a moment. But especially if you’re a woman, how can you not be a feminist? On the other hand, if you’re in this Frantz Fanon colonial mindset where you’ve been indoctrinated to accept your own subjugation…. 

ALIX SHULMAN: At the time that the second wave was spreading, you had to marry or you were an old maid, uncertain of how you’d survive. Husbands were the breadwinners. I’m just talking about the middle class now, because most working class women were always working outside the home, and that includes many people of color, immigrants, people living in poverty. It’s a different set of pressures. But a lot of middle class women felt threatened by feminism in those early days because they worried that they were going to lose their only way of surviving if they embraced women’s liberation. No way they were going to be able to get their husbands to do half the housework. So what were they going to do? Get dumped? I mean, people act in their perceived self-interest.

This was another rallying cry of our movement in the early days of consciousness raising: “Figure out where our interests lie and fight for them.” For women it was a kind of revolutionary statement to claim the right to put our own interests first.

Another principle from one of the earliest consciousness raising groups was, “We take the women’s side in everything.…We ask: is it good for women or bad for women?” This in itself was very shocking. Of course there are so many different categories of women, but in those early days that wasn’t perceived as such an issue. So if a woman sees her self-interest as threatened by feminism, she’s going to oppose it.

Though the backlash was mainly men, there were also women, including many evangelicals, involved in the anti-abortion movement, the anti-gay movement. Remember Anita….what was her name?….

TKN: Anita… (searching) She was the orange juice woman…..I can’t remember now. I guess that’s a good sign! Oh, Anita Bryant!

AS: Right. People like her were very public figures and yet they were arguing against women having public lives.

TKN: You started to allude to distinctions—class distinctions and otherwise—within the feminist movement. Can you talk a little bit about that?

AS: The #MeToo movement that has surfaced so far—or anyway that has gotten a lot of press—has been mostly in industries where there are celebrities. But much worse—because it’s so entrenched and without recourse—is the sexism and sexual harassment and abuse and misconduct toward women who are waitresses, chambermaids, cleaners, health care workers, blue collar workers. Many of these workers get such low pay they lack a financial cushion, especially those with families to support. Who is going to stand up for them? Even where they have a union, the women aren’t necessarily supported in their complaints against union men—as reported in the superb New York Times story on sexual harassment at two Chicago area Ford Motor plants. Recognizing the need, prominent women in the film industry recently founded the Time’s Up movement precisely to create a legal defense fund for victims of sexual harassment in low-paying and low-profile jobs.

TKN: One would hope that it begins where it began, in entertainment and media, for the reasons you cited, and eventually it spreads. I mean, it’s great that Harvey and the rest of them all are being brought down, but you’re telling me there’s no sexual harassment on Wall Street? Come on!

AS: That’s surely going to happen. Another place is in the universities, of course. The professors in charge of your dissertation can ask for anything and frequently do. And how do you refuse when they control your future? That’s another aspect of the sexual harassment law: retaliation. It’s illegal to retaliate against someone who alleges sexual harassment. Yet it happens all the time and is hard to prove.

TKN: And it also goes to the issue of consent. Often the defense is that the relationship was consensual. But when the power structure is such, like a professor and a student, how can there be true consent?

AS: Right. As Henry Kissinger famously said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” I tend to be more permissive about consenting adults, although of course it’s complicated.

The military is another place where misogyny and abuse are rampant. We have so much evidence. Every so often there is a scandal involving the terrible sexism in the military: women being raped, mistreated, shunted aside, ridiculed, and retaliated against when they complain. The military is so male dominated, and the power in the military is not democratic in the least.

TKN: By definition. It’s not a democratic institution even when it’s in the service of a democracy, and it can’t be.

AS: I just read that the number of rapes at West Point doubled last year. So I don’t know if the military is going to change. I kind of doubt it.

TKN: Although, I grew up in the military, I was born into it, I was in it myself—

AS: I know.

TKN: ….but I was always in all-male units, I was never in a unit with a woman, so I can’t speak to that. But I’ll say this. The Army desegregated before the rest of American society because it was ordered to. Truman simply ordered the military to desegregate well before the majority of the general public was ready to accept that. And even the racists in the service who didn’t like it still had to salute and comply. “Three bags full, sir!” So the same anti-democratic structure can work to the advantage of social justice.

AS: Yes.

TKN: It can, but only if the people in power—whether they’re female generals or male generals—say, “This is not going to continue. We’re going to stop it.” They can stop it. I don’t know if they’re going to do that when it comes to sexual harassment or discrimination, let alone assault, but they can.

AS: Yes, right.

TKN: Same with the removal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the lifting of the prohibition on homosexuality. One day you just get an order from above that says, “I don’t care how you feel—I don’t care if you’re homophobic or not—this is how it’s going to be. Deal with it.”

AS: But I wonder if the powers that be in the military will have that attitude towards women. Who knows? So far, they haven’t even enforced the rules they have.

TKN: Right. I mean, it’s a macho institution by its nature: just the numbers of men versus women in the ranks, and the nature of what a military does. But the flag officers, the brass, could stand up and be the leaders they’re supposed to be and set an example for the whole country.

AS: They could. Of course they could.

TKN: They could be the ones to say “It stops here and we’re going to lead the way.” We’ll see if they do.

AS: And if you disobey, you get court martialed. Discharged. Out!

TKN: We’ll see.


AS: I keep hearing that there’s a generational split around the #MeToo movement. Older women grew up understanding that the only way to survive was to go along a bit, as you see in Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen. What alternatives did you have? I mean, you can’t make a big fuss or you’re finished. And some of the women of my generation, and maybe the older half of the next generation, were able to survive only by being accommodating. And that should include me, but since I became an ardent feminist it doesn’t.

Young women now have a different experience, and with the #MeToo opening, many just won’t tolerate it. That’s what’s so great; that’s what I love about them. They’re not going to give sexual harassers or abusers a pass or give them a break. They’re going to demand justice. Lovely. Go for it!

TKN: It’s such a huge change. When you go back and look at things like the image of the businessman chasing his secretary around the desk, what used to pass as routine now looks appalling. There’s an enormous swath of older pop culture that now just makes your jaw drop.

AS: I’ve written about the Beats, so radical in some ways but quite as misogynist as the rest of the culture. There’s a movie that a few of the Beats are in, the young Allen Ginsberg and Jack Karouac, made by Robert Frank, the photographer, called Pull My Daisy. If you look at Pull My Daisy now, the plot is how to sneak out of the house and away from the wife. That’s it. The women are demonized. It’’s the same plot in the Dagwood and Blondie comic strips and movies; also in Jiggs and Maggie. The whole point is that the poor guy has this monstrous wife who won’t let him go out with the boys.

TKN: Talking about my daughter, she started watching I Love Lucy, which is fantastic of course, except that as good as it is, most of the plots turn on how ditsy Lucy is, or how she does something dumb, or gets herself in some sort of fix. It reflects its era, of course, but it’s problematic today to show that to a little girl, over and over. And that was just taken as normal! It was a comedy.

And then we started watching The Mary Tyler Moore Show, which I have very fond memories of as well. I actually wrote about this in the very first post in this blog. The first season of that was 1970 and I have to explain to my daughter things about it that are mysterious to her. Like, she’ll say, “How come the camera guys won’t listen to Mary? She’s the boss.” I’m like well… how do I explain it?

AS: That’s how life was. And in many ways still is.

TKN: It’s painful, because you hate to ruin a child’s innocence, but at some point you have to let them in how the world is and prepare them for the injustice they’re going to face. 

AS: But young women today, in this time of reawakened feminism, are not going to accept that. They are not going to take it. It’s wonderful.


TKN: I don’t know if we told you that Ferne and I were at that Dustin Hoffman thing with John Oliver.

AS: No, what was that?

TKN: It was a panel discussion for the 20th anniversary of Wag the Dog, with Hoffman, DeNiro, Barry Levinson, and Jane Rosenthal who produced the film. Oliver was the moderator. It was a normal Q&A for a while, and then Oliver said, “Well, I can’t avoid this issue. The film turns on an incident of sexual abuse by a fictional president, and Dustin, you’ve been accused of such and such back in 1985.” And Dustin was very calm, and sort of had a fairly standard answer ready, but then John Oliver just shook his head and said, “You know, that answer really pisses me off.” Because Dustin really wasn’t owning up to it…..he was just saying, “I’m sorry if I offended anyone.” And he really emphasized the “if.” And from there it got ugly.

It was pretty extraordinary to watch; you don’t see something that raw in public very often. And finally Oliver moved off it, but then Dustin brought it back up again! Twice! He was like the defendant in court representing himself and just digging a deeper and deeper hole. And John Oliver was like, “Hey, I tried to get off this and get back to talking about the movie, but if you want to get into it, I’ll get into it.”

I love Dustin Hoffman, but it was amazing to watch this man who is so accomplished and so successful and so beloved, and he simply couldn’t stand the fact that this one British comedian didn’t think he was a good guy. And he couldn’t let it go.

I mean, let’s keep in mind that he’s 80 years old, and he’s been a giant movie star his whole adult life, so I’m sure it’s not easy for him to adjust to this sea change in our culture all of a sudden. But he just couldn’t get his head around the problem and how to respond, even to save his own ass.

AS: That’s the thing. It was a different time. But now is now and you have to inform what happened back then with your consciousness of now. And some people have a new consciousness and some people just don’t. They want it to be the old way. That’s what frightens me, because they have power. But we’ll see. I hope that a huge change occurs and that it lasts, but I’m not counting on it.

TKN: Is that based on your experience of having watched the cycle before?

AS: Yes, exactly. The backlash, which is conducted by the people with the power.

TKN: And of course we’re only talking here about the West, and really about America. As you can see the reaction to #MeToo in Europe is different. Asia Argento was run out of Italy. Catherine Deneuve signed this letter that said “What’s wrong with stealing a kiss?” and then she immediately had to back off, but still. And that’s not even talking about the Third World, the Islamic world, or the fundamentalist Christian world.

AS: Now finally women can drive in Saudi Arabia. [laughs] No, gender equality is very far from happening. Even in the best of places—well, I don’t know. Maybe in the Scandinavian countries it’s great. I don’t know.

TKN: Maybe it’s the speartip of it. My hope is that my daughter will grow up in a different world. We’ll never live to see it, of course—

AS: I certainly won’t.


TKN: So what is the breaking point at which this changes permanently?

AS: The struggle for women’s equality has been going on for a couple hundred years and improvements are made and battles won, and then it stops. And sometimes it goes backward, but not all the way back, and then it starts again. And there’s no reason to presume that this pattern isn’t going to continue. I mean not until the entire society changes, not until we have a revolution of true gender and racial equality. Until people are just people. And I don’t see that anywhere near happening. Each generation can take it only so far.

And which of the changes will become permanent with each revitalization of the movement? You just have to wait and see.

Abortion was the sine qua non for the second wave because for liberation women must be able to control their bodies, their reproduction, their sex lives. In the beginning the struggle for abortion rights went through surprisingly quickly. And it’s still the law. But it’s been chipped away so steadily that even if Roe v. Wade doesn’t get overturned—which is a possibility—access to abortion is not nearly as easy as it used to be. I’m saying this to illustrate that even what seems to be permanently changed–by Supreme Court decision!–isn’t necessarily so.

I don’t think we can ever let up our vigilance. I don’t think we can ever relax and say “Well, now we have it. We have equality.” I think that’s maybe what happened in the 1920s after women got the vote. A lot of people thought, okay we’ve got that now. But there are many things that can eat away at the accomplishments of a movement and undermine the gains.

Take the civil rights movement; Black Lives Matter is such an important movement. It’s not that people didn’t know that police brutality was much harsher against people of color; that’s been forever. But the civil rights movement was able to take it only so far before the forces of reaction, the forces in power took over again. Look at school segregation. It was declared unconstitutional, but the schools may now be more segregated than ever. Racism and misogyny are so much stronger than law. So the movements have to rise again and spread. That’s just the way it works.

TKN: I had this conversation with Bill Jersey when we were talking about fundamentalism and evangelicalism. There are these things that are signposts of progress. I don’t think a politician today could get away with saying “We should go back to separate drinking fountains.” I think we’ve cleared that incredibly low bar. And the same with the feminist movement. I think women make 79 cents on the dollar or whatever, maybe it’s worse than that. But I don’t think a politician would say, “Yeah, that’s a good idea.” They have to pretend. They pay lip service.  

AS: Like they pay lip service to sharing childcare.

TKN: Right. So these are such tiny incremental steps, but they are steps.

AS: But in some ways they’re huge. Whatever steps are taken make a big difference, especially those that are permanent. It’s hard to imagine that some of these aren’t permanent, though I have seen how advances have been stalled or reversed. Like women being sent back to the kitchen after WW II or abortion rights. So you can never take them for granted.

I can’t predict the future. I think that Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale is not impossible.

TKN: I was going to ask you about that, because my contention is that if Hillary had won and that show aired, people would have said (dismissive) “Eh, more dystopian science fiction.” Now they watch it and they’re like, “That looks like the news.” It’s scary.

AS: I know. Exactly. That’s why we can never stop being vigilant and fighting on every possible front.

All of these #MeToo women who came forward, they came forward as a group really, and quickly became a movement. I mean, they did it one at a time but they had a whole cohort backing them. And it keeps growing. That’s why it‘s happening now. Once that spark is lit, it’s really hard to put out the fire.

Now I don’t know how far this will go. I don’t know if another big wave of feminism will take off. We’ll see. I hope it’s a tsunami. But we’ll have to wait and see because I know the power of backlash. The backlash has already started and it’s going to get stronger and stronger. The media is always a big part of a backlash. We’ll see what the media does. The media still is run by men. And I’m not saying that all men are the enemy—nothing like it. I’m just saying that the backlash is going to be conducted by men who are still in positions of great power in every institution in the United States. But now there’s also the internet and social media, where power is diffuse. So we’ll see.

I’d like to say another thing about our movement. A strong feminist movement springs from a unified vision of equality and liberation and radical transformation, of which the myriad feminist projects—sexual autonomy, anti-racism, workplace justice, healthcare, family, violence, etc.—are contributing beams of light. But during the dark times of backlash, when the movement is relatively weak, it becomes fragmented, and those programs become separated. Separate they are not so threatening to those in power, because they seem to have limited goals, rather than the great goal of changing our entire society at its core. And of course there are certain strands of the movement that are always less threatening —for instance, the movement among corporate women to get women a bigger piece of the pie. But in the feminism I know, the goal is to change the entire pie. Not to get a little piece of it, not to get crumbs, but to transform the very recipe and distribution of pie.


Alix Kates Shulman

Hailed by the The New York Times as “the voice that has for three decades provided a lyrical narrative of the changing position of women in American society,” Alix Shulman exploded on the national scene in 1972 with the publication of her bestselling debut novel Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen. As a coming-of-age tale set in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s, it feels like it could have been written this morning in its depiction of sexual assault, discrimination, and misogyny. She is the author of fourteen books including the novels Burning Questions, On the Stroll, In Every Woman’s Life…, and Ménage; the memoirs Drinking the Rain, A Good Enough Daughter, and To Love What Is; the children’s books Bosley on the Number Line, Finders Keepers, and Awake or Asleep; and numerous works of non-fiction. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Salon, The Nation, and The Guardian, among many others. Currently she is co-editing, with Honor Moore, the Library of America anthology Writing the Women’s Movement, 1963-1991.


Feminism in the Age of Monsters: A Conversation with Alix Kates Shulman (Part 1)


As one of the most prominent figures in “second wave feminism,” Alix Kates Shulman has been on the front lines of the fight for equal rights and social justice for more than 50 years.

Hailed by the (not failing) New York Times as “the voice that has for three decades provided a lyrical narrative of the changing position of women in American society,” Shulman exploded on the national scene in 1972 with the publication of her bestselling debut novel Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen. As a coming-of-age tale set in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s, it feels like it could have been written this morning in its depiction of sexual assault, discrimination, and misogyny. She is the author of fourteen books including the novels Burning Questions, On the Stroll, In Every Woman’s Life…, and Menáge; the memoirs Drinking the Rain, A Good Enough Daughter, and To Love What Is; the children’s books Bosley on the Number Line, Finders Keepers, and Awake or Asleep; and numerous works of non-fiction. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Salon, The Nation, and The Guardian, among many others. Currently she is co-editing the Library of America anthology Writing the Women’s Movement, 1963-1991.

Alix’s perspective has never been more relevant than in the current moment.


THE KING’S NECKTIE: Thank you for sitting down with me, Alix. Let me start with the broadest possible question. I feel like we’re in a blender as a nation, with everything that’s going on. The country is finally reckoning with endemic sexual harassment and assault in our culture, while we have a man who brazenly boasts of his own history on that count in the White House, at the expense of the most prominent female politician in American history. So what do you make of the present moment?

ALIX SHULMAN: It’s quite ironic that the latest resurgence of feminism was born because of Hillary’s defeat and Trump’s election. But that’s the way it works. When people get very angry they can be very effective, if they’re organized. There’s no way of knowing when a revolutionary moment will occur, or explaining why any revolutionary moment occurred at a given time. It’s a mystery. But I do think that it usually has to do with some event that provokes a sense of, “enough is enough.”

You know the first wave of feminism started in 1848 and ended in 1920 when women got the vote. That’s three generations of constant struggle with its ups and downs. Then nothing much until the 1960s—late ‘67 early ’68 I would say—and suddenly it exploded again as the Women’s Liberation Movement, or radical feminism. That was the time of resistence to the Vietnam War; the nation had been politicized. I think there was probably as much bifurcation among the public then as there is now, maybe even more.

The backlash against feminism set in probably in the mid-70s and on, when the war ended. Is that a coincidence, or was that a reason? It’s complicated, and I’m not a historian.

TKN: In that dormant period between the end of the first wave in 1920 and the rise of the second wave in the ‘60s, you have the Depression, and you have the Second World War, and then you have this sort of Eisenhower era. To what extent was the war a factor—the “Rosie the Riveter” phenomenon of so many women going to work outside the home?

AS: During the Depression, because there was such high unemployment, a family policy was introduced whereby only one person in the family was allowed to work. Guess who that was! But then during the war women had employment opportunities they hadn’t had before. Women got jobs in the factories, and jobs doing many things that the men who had gone off to war had done prior to that. And then when the men came home, the women had to give up their jobs. There was really a deliberate, massive propaganda campaign to get them back to the kitchen. And there was so much discrimination against women. For example, most of the unions would not organize or include women. It was really bad during that period; it’s hard even to describe. Women didn’t like that, but they didn’t have much choice.

My mother was one of those people who was sent back to the kitchen. She had worked for the WPA in the ‘30s—Roosevelt’s Work Progress Administration—and when the war started, the WPA ended. She lost her job. But I grew up knowing how happy she was working. She was the only mother in the neighborhood who had a job, and I was so proud of her for it. But it didn’t last.

TKN: So in that period of dormancy, things were happening; it’s just that activism per se wasn’t happening, yes? Rosie the Riveter and all that contributed to what then happened in the ‘60s, it seems to me.

AS: It wasn’t Rosie’s generation that restarted the feminist movement; it was Rosie’s daughters’. After the war, during the ‘50s, people who had been socialists and communists—important movements in this country, especially during the ‘30s—were under attack. As soon as the Hot War ends the Cold War and McCarthyism take over and many people lose their jobs—forever. That is not a time when political organizing is likely to go on. People might be angry but they’re also terrified.

But the ‘60s was a time of tremendous political activity, especially among the young, over the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. So it makes sense that the feminist movement would be reborn at that time. The radicalized young women activists in movement organizations were shocked that their male comrades did not treat them as equals and dismissed their outrage about misogyny as trivial. The women were kept out of leadership positions and expected to go on doing the typing, coffeemaking, and fucking. After certain incidents, they resigned in fury and started meeting separately.

The main weapon of organizing the second wave was something called “consciousness raising” where women would get together in small groups and speak personally about their experience vis-a-vis men and male power. These were not group therapy sessions: these were political meetings trying to understand how they got here and how to mobilize their anger in order to make a movement. Some of that consciousness raising was around issues of bad sex, of abortion and maternity, of violence against women and what is now called rape culture, of education and job discrimination, of what was later named sexual harassment, and of all the manifestations of patriarchy including the patriarchal family. Another topic was the sadness of some of their mothers over their limited lives—a plight Betty Friedan’s 1963 blockbuster The Feminine Mystique described so well. Looking back at what happened to their mothers, the young middle-class activists among them didn’t want to live that restricted a life. It’s rage over injustice that gets any movement going.


TKN: It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that that moment of anger has happened again.

AS: Absolutely. But the question is, will it be sustained? Because it has happened other times. After Anita Hill was so humiliated and mistreated in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, there was a mini-revival of the movement, but it was kind of short lived. In the ‘80s and up to the present there has still been a great deal of second wave activity around core feminist issues, but there wasn’t so much of that unified vision as there had been during the late ‘60s and the ‘70s. There was such a big, well-organized backlash against second wave feminism that the movement splintered. People went on struggling, but a lot of them felt that they were keeping the pilot light lit for the next great moment.

For a number of decades until Trump’s election—or maybe until Beyonce declared herself a feminist, a year or two before the election—that backlash made many young women, who otherwise believed in the goals of the movement, reluctant to use the word “feminist” about themselves. Now, since Trump, everybody is using the word feminist. It’s being used by men respectfully—by editors of journals who never would have given a moment’s thought to feminism except contempt—now they’re jumping on the bandwagon. It’s amazing to me. And also I can’t help finding it a little amusing.

But who cares what word we use? I don’t care. I just find it a symbol of something that’s changed now that the word is being embraced again by everybody. Even Trump recently used it by announcing that he’s not one.

TKN: Is that rejection of the label “feminism” in part an ironic result of feminism’s very success? Those younger women who benefited from everything that you did—they didn’t see a need to be “feminists” because of the very things that feminism had already accomplished for them, without them even realizing it.

AS: Yes, they were born into a different world. Just as I was born into a world where women had the vote and were able to smoke and have skirts as short as they wanted and had a kind of a sexual liberation beginning in the ‘20s, the Jazz Age, and even before that, in the 1910s in Greenwich Village. I would say I took it for granted. I didn’t know a world any different than that.

TKN: So to what do you attribute the fact that all that’s happening now is happening at this particular moment? The Harvey Weinstein story could have broken a year ago, or ten years ago—and similar stories have broken. Why is it having this massive impact now?

AS: Because of Trump! Because Trump was so misogynistic, so blatantly racist, sexist, anti-immigrant—proudly, actually—that he got everybody furious. It wasn’t just some real estate developer: it was the person who defeated Hillary unjustly and became president. So the day after his inauguration, that huge women’s march which took place all over the world announced a new movement. And when you have a movement you can do things. You can do things together that you couldn’t do as an individual.

TKN: So when you were a young woman, did you already implicitly understand the injustice?

AS: Yes. I always knew that it was unjust. I had a brother. My parents treated us equally but the world didn’t. But since there was no word for it—for the idea of injustice based on sex—and it was not acknowledged, I had no language with which to object. There was no movement. So I went about trying to be a little subversive, trying to be a boy, many different tactics. But without a movement those individual gestures mean nothing. In fact, one of the first things that the second wave insisted upon was that there are no individual solutions. The only way to change things for women is to have a mass movement.

TKN: No “separate peace,” right? Everybody has to stick together.

AS: Yes. It’s like separate but equal. We were separate and it was presumed that we were equal because we had our sphere. To have any other goal, to have ambition…..even now, for a woman to have ambition is considered unwomanly, unfeminine. This is what Hillary had to contend with. And that’s after a feminist movement. Before it, you were a freak or you were unacceptable if you let it be known that you had any ambition.

I have a little collection of girls advice books from the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s. They all tell girls not to show that they’re smart. They say when you’re with a boy just ask questions, know about sports, ask about what’s he’s interested in, don’t show off, don’t let it be known that you’re smart. If you do, you’ll never get married.

TKN: You’ll never be president, for sure.

AS: For sure!


TKN: That issue of ambition and the way that the same traits that are celebrated in boys and men are criticized in girls and women: you couldn’t ask for a plainer example of it than the election. But any time I’ve written or said that I thought misogyny played a huge role—not the only factor, of course, but a big one—I’ve been attacked. “Oh, that’s an oversimplification, it’s reductionist, etc.” But to me, it’s blatant. As close as the election was, if Hillary was the exact same candidate—same strengths and weakness, same CV and same baggage—but had a penis, she would have won in a landslide.  

AS: Yes, absolutely. That’s it from the beginning. The hate campaign against Hillary for decades—ever since Bill first ran for president—was so clearly misogynist.

TKN: We thought we had made great strides—and as you say, we had made some great strides—and then we were starkly reminded of how far we still have to go. You know, we thought we were in a post-racial society when Barack was elected. We found out we weren’t…..

AS: I never thought so!

TKN: And then we thought we were in a post-chauvinist society, and we found out we weren’t. So I’m going to take back what I’ve always said about Trump. He actually has done something good, accidentally: he restarted the feminist movement!

AS: [laughs] That’s why I started by saying it’s ironic.

I think of it is as a kind of consolation prize that we’ve had this awakening. But it may be bigger than that. A consolation prize is a lesser prize. I’m not sure this is lesser. We didn’t get the first female president, but we got this awakening. He’s going to be in there for eight years max. But if this movement takes off, it’s going to be a lot bigger than Trump.

TKN: I ‘m loath to be a pollyanna and say, “Well, he burned it to the ground and now things are going to be better.” We don’t know if they’re going to be better….

AS: We don’t know.

TKN: But they might.

AS: They might. Who knows? The suffragettes fought for three generations before getting the vote. It took a civil war to abolish slavery.

TKN: Speaking of a consolation prize, for Hillary, maybe better than being president is that she’ll go down in history as this martyr and maybe have a second or third act in her life.

AS: Well, let’s hope, yes. But as for going down in history, I myself am very skeptical of that. The first women who did everything don’t go down in history because history is not written by women. It’s written by men. There are a lot of women now who have been able to become feminist historians because of the second wave, but most of them are shunted to women’s studies and nobody listens to them except other women.

When I was in school there was no mention of the first wave of feminism. Zero. Susan B. Anthony and the vote got maybe a paragraph, never even a full chapter. This is half the population of the country. And when Susan B. Anthony was mentioned, it was often with ridicule: this hatchet-faced old maid! She was never honored in any textbook I ever had: elementary school, junior high school, high school, college, graduate school, forget it. So I don’t think that Hillary Clinton will go down in history unless she has another act to come.

Just as Geraldine Ferraro hasn’t. Nobody young knows who she is. Just as Shirley Chisholm hasn’t, outside of African-American and women’s studies. Rosa Parks, yes: she launched a movement. But even the story about Rosa Parks is inaccurate. She was an activist, a member of an organization of activists. But she is known as just a random woman passenger on a bus who decided on her own not to move to the back. No, it was planned.

TKN: I didn’t know that.

AS: Few people know it. And not only that, she wasn’t the first one. There were a few women before her who refused to move to the back of the bus. Note: all women. But the thinking was that the time wasn’t yet ripe to make an issue of it. The time would come. And it came!


TKN: In Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen, it’s striking how a book that came out in 1972 and is set in the ‘40s and ‘50s and ‘60s deals with the exact same issues we’re dealing with today.

AS: It’s amazing how contemporary it feels. Some things have changed, but a lot of things haven’t. Certainly the women’s movement, the second wave, made tremendous strides. When I first came to New York and well until the late ‘60s or early ‘70s, the employment ads in the New York Times and every newspaper in the country were divided into “Help Wanted Male” and “Help Wanted Female.” We weren’t allowed to apply for a “Help Wanted Male” listing. And the bottom of the pay scale for men was the top of the pay scale of women. All kinds of discrimination against women were perfectly acceptable. So we have made great strides. However, sex segregation in many jobs and pay disparity persist.

There are now things that are illegal that didn’t used to be illegal, like sexual harassment on the job, marital rape, and date rape. There weren’t even names for those offenses. Before the women’s movement, in order to get a rape conviction, in most places you had to have two witnesses. Witnesses!

So many things have changed for the better. I can tell you the name of the woman who went state by state by state getting marital rape and date rape recognized as rape and made illegal.

TKN: What’s her name? Let’s give her credit.

AS: Her name is Laura X. And she did a fabulous job. And I can tell you the name of the woman who invented the term ”sexual harassment.” That term didn’t even appear until the mid-1970s, though the offenses it describes go back to cavemen. Her name is Lin Farley. They were movement activists.

The law makes it very clear what justifies firing people for sexual harassment. And it doesn’t have to be rape. That isn’t to say there aren’t distinctions, of course. I mean rape is a criminal act and you should go to prison for it whereas some of the other things that qualify as sexual harassment, you only get fired for. Like creating a “hostile work environment.” People make distinctions. Nobody is saying not to. But legally, it doesn’t have to be sexual assault in order to be sexual harassment.

It puzzles me why so many people are saying, “Well, that person was fired without a hearing, without due process.” But in fact we have no idea about what went into the firing. And I would be very surprised if most of these companies didn’t have a process in place, because they stand to be sued if they don’t follow procedures. The fact that they don’t make the process public is not surprising. The public doesn’t really have a right to know why any person is fired. If somebody’s fired because she came to the office late three days out of every five, does the public have a right to know that? I don’t think so. That’s an internal process.

Anti-harassment laws have been in place for decades, but when women complained nothing was done. Where those laws were not enforced they might as well not have existed. And not only were they not enforced, but the women’s complaints weren’t believed. So even though many companies had procedures in place, they didn’t use them. Or no one was punished. Now, because of the #MeToo movement, starting with Harvey Weinstein—whose horrors could no longer be hidden, although they had been for many years—now companies don’t want to be tarred that way. And so they are following their protocols as they hadn’t for decades.


TKN: Can you talk a little bit about how feminism has shaped us culturally?

AS: When I was growing up—and this is pre-television—there were no female voices on the radio, except the occasional entertainer. It was just agreed that women’s voices were not pleasant. They were shrill, we were told. So women didn’t get to be on the radio. And there was always some reason like that for everything. You can go into fancy restaurants now and find that all of the waiters are men. How can that be? I won’t go into those restaurants, or if I do, I make a fuss. I ask “Why are there no waitresses?”

TKN: Well, that’s in your book, definitely.

AS: Oh, really? Oh I don’t remember that.

TKN: The character goes up to Lake Placid to work, which—ironically—my mother did too.

AS: Really? She was a waiter there?

TKN: She wasn’t a waitress but she worked up there. Faye Dunaway was a waitress at her hotel. She wasn’t “Faye Dunaway” at the time, not yet—she was just some girl. But that world was something my mom had told me about.

AS: But here now, in the 21st Century, the fancier the restaurant, the less likely they are to have waitresses.

TKN: About the voices, I’m embarrassed to tell you this story. I wanted my daughter—who’s almost seven—to see women’s sports on TV, because if I watch football or something she always asks, annoyed: ”How come it’s all boys?”

AS: She will? She’ll say that?

TKN: Yeah. Her generation of six-year-olds are super politicized. In our neighborhood anyway. 

AS: Oh, great! Good for her. Fabulous.

TKN: So I recorded an NWSL women’s professional soccer game to show her that women can be pro athletes too, and we turned it on and I was shocked that the commentators were women. The play-by-play announcer and the color commentator both. It hadn’t occured to me beforehand; I just assumed they’d be men. And I felt like an asshole that it surprised me, so there’s my own innate sexism right there. But to my daughter it was perfectly natural. She was like, “Yeah, of course they’re women. Who else would it be?”

AS: Of course they are. But that was very hard to achieve. They also said we can’t have women sportswriters because they’d have to go into the male locker room. [laughter]

TKN: It’s a combination of sexism and prudishness. Prudishness is a weapon.

AS: Well penises are weapons. [laughter]

There were also many organizations that wouldn’t hire women because they didn’t have enough women’s rooms! I remember a big complaint by the women in Congress was that they didn’t have adequate women’s rooms.

TKN: Speaking of Congress, you have to look no further than that to see how far we have not come.

AS: Exactly. But that could soon improve. More women than ever before are running for office in 2018. And they need support.

TKN: When Mitch McConnell said “she persisted”—well, he meant it as an indictment, but it’s been turned against him beautifully. He didn’t even realize what he was saying.  

AS: “I told her to shut up and nevertheless she persisted.” My daughter had a little bracelet made for me that says, “Nevertheless she persisted.”

TKN: Now it’s gone into the lexicon and it will always be there and it will be hung around his neck like an albatross, as it should be. And then you have Kamala Harris getting shouted down by her colleagues….

AS: Like Hillary being interrupted and shouted down and stalked during the campaign and the debates. But never mind, let’s not go there. Too painful.


TKN: At the risk of stating the obvious, the election was the perfect embodiment of the plight of women in America. You had the most qualified possible candidate you could ever imagine—a woman, as it happened—losing to the least qualified, most cretinous, in fact actively counter-qualified man imaginable, and one whose maleness was a decisive factor in his win. And it was just the injustice of it—I don’t care what your politics are—that was so appalling.

AS: Appalling.

TKN: And I won’t put it on the Russians either. I have no doubt they did what they did, but sixty some million Americans still voted for that guy…..and millions of them were women! How do you explain that?

AS: Because not all women are feminists. Certainly no feminist ever voted for Trump. But many white women are anti-progressive and anti-feminist. That’s no surprise in a polarized country like ours with its racist and misogynist history.

People have difficulty bucking their community and their situation. A lot of white women are still dependent on their husbands economically, especially women with children. Remember that Trump won in rural areas, where goals like gender and racial equality have made smaller inroads. It’s no accident, I think, that the second wave started in the big cities and university towns, places traditionally open to new ideas.

I don’t think it was stupid to vote for him if you believed that he might actually improve your life.

TKN: But that’s the thing—it was a con.

AS: Yes, of course! And not the first time in our history.

TKN: If it’s true that he’s gonna improve your life, it’s great. Except it isn’t true! It’s never going to be true.

AS: Right.


TKN: It struck me as astonishing that when you wrote A Marriage Agreement in 1969, the concept you proposed was considered so radical—the idea that parents should share equally in childcare. Radical! Revolutionary! Not to take away from your idea in the least, but from the perspective of today, it only seems logical.

AS: It’s hard to imagine what it used to be like when it’s not like that anymore. Although I’m not sure how much it isn’t like that anymore, to tell you the truth. Nowadays at least lip service is paid to the idea of equality in the household, in the marriage, in childcare and housework. But it was laughable—ridicule-able—in 1969 when I wrote that. Sex roles were so clearly delineated. Taking care of children was women’s work and men who did it were considered unmasculine. It was a slur.

At the end of Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen I have a chapter in which I quote Dr. Spock, who was the childcare guru of the time. For starters, in his famous book he never uses any pronoun but “he” for babies or children. Then he just assumes childcare is exclusively women’s work. He has a passage in which he says that if the husband doesn’t want to change a diaper, it’s okay. Don’t force him. Maybe he’ll become better with the children after they’re old enough to be friends with him. This was a given of the time.

TKN: And he was progressive!

AS: Well, he was progressive on the war; he was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. I don’t know that he was progressive on women. Nobody was. To be a progressive meant to be a progressive about boy things. Women‘s issues weren’t in the progressive conversation. His book came out in 1946; that was way before there was a revival of the feminist movement. There’s no such thing as being progressive about women absent a movement.


Next week in part two of this conversation, Alix elaborates on anti-feminism among women, generational differences, classism, and the danger of losing hard-fought gains.

Herr Drumpf: A Thought Experiment

Trump as a child


Well, 2018 is off to a rollicking start as the self-proclaimed Very Stable Genius at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (apologies, Benj Pasek and Justin Paul) has already managed to do what many thought was unthinkable—that is, behave in a manner even more infantile, destructive, and jawdropping than we previously thought possible. From flaunting his racism with the “shitholes-vs-Norway” comment, to revelations that he paid hush money to a porn star (also: made her watch Shark Week), to shutting down the government over his border wall (or fence, or window, or whatever it is this week) to the capper of them all, revelations that he tried to fire Bob Mueller last June and was prevented only by the White House counsel shooting a Thorazine-tipped dart into his neck, it’s already been a banner year for transgressions both great and small. And it’s still January.

Needless to say, many of these actions would have—individually—been presidency-ending events in any previous administration, but never mind. We are in uncharted waters and here be dragons. We need not even debate the accuracy of Michael Wolff’s salacious instant bestseller, Fire and Fury: Trump’s frantic, frothing-at-the-mouth response lent the book all the credence it could possibly want. Nice job, Don.

Hard as it is to believe, speculation that the Fake President of the United States is not only unfit for the office and a danger to humanity but a functionally illiterate mental defective has become the norm, notwithstanding the hilariously over-the-top evaluation of Rear Adm. (Dr.) Ronny Jackson, MD (which, apparently, is standard procedure with all of Trump’s physicians). Like an active duty US Navy doctor—with a Southern accent, no less—was going to come out on his own initiative and say, “The President is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.”

Somehow we’re supposed to feel relieved that the pretender-in-chief was (reportedly) able to pass a cognitive assessment test used to determine if accident victims are brain-damaged, the same way we’re supposed to believe that Trump grew an inch and is in Olympian health despite subsisting almost entirely on Kentucky Fried Chicken and Diet Coke.

I guess we were overdue for a remake of Caligula, but I thought it would be on HBO, not CNN.


Meanwhile, despite the continuing, unconscionable assault by the White House and GOP, the Office of the Special Counsel continues its disciplined, opaque labors, the polar opposite of Trump in every way. On that front, word that Mueller’s team is seeking to interview the fake president himself seemed to throw His Orangeness’s lawyers into a dead panic, exactly as one might expect. Naturally, their preference is for their erratic and undisciplined client to reply in writing. Presumably Trump would do so via Twitter, in all caps.

But now it seems the White House has bowed to the inevitable and agreed to an in person interview. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that session. Attention Aaron Sorkin: I can see the Broadway play already.

Aaron Blake of the WaPo posed six questions he thinks Mueller’s team will (or ought to) ask. Given Donald Trump’s temperament, allergy to the truth, and everything else we know about the man, I find it impossible to imagine that he can honestly answer any of those six questions in a way that will not incriminate him. (That is, if he is not surrounded by a battalion of lawyers machining his every word.) The operative word, of course, is “honestly”….and again, given all we know about Trump, there is every reason to believe he will lie. But of course, if he does, in light of all the other evidence the Mueller team has amassed—including cooperating witnesses like Mike Flynn and possibly even wiretaps—he will have perjured himself. Ask Bill Clinton how that might pan out. It is indeed a “perjury trap” of sorts, as the cartoonish Roger Stone warned, but if so it’s a trap with an absurdly easy escape route built in: don’t fucking lie.

Mueller’s efforts may eventually bring Trump down; Donald and his people are certainly behaving in a hysterical manner that suggests that they are (correctly) terrified about that, which in itself is suspicious and suggests guilt. (See the antics of Devin Nunes, Sen. Ron Johnson, and Lou Dobbs, just for a start.) But as almost every sentient observer has noted, that downfall will depend not on facts—alternative or otherwise—but on the integrity of the Republican Party.

Hang on—I need to go brush my teeth because that line just made me throw up in my mouth.


While we wait for Bob Mueller to save the republic, it’s worth exploring some of the deeper causes of this crisis, ones that even Trump’s demise—should it come—cannot rid us, much as we’d like to believe it could. To that end, please indulge me in a little thought experiment.

In 1885 Donald J. Trump’s grandfather immigrated to the United States from the town of Kallstadt, in what was then still the independent Kingdom of Bavaria. (His grandson’s dislike of immigrants presumably post-dates that.) The family name is in dispute. Last year John Oliver launched a campaign get everyone to refer to then-Candidate Trump by the Dickensian surname of Drumpf, which some allege was the original name before it got Anglicized into its current, more Runyonesque form.

Apart from entertainment value, the provenance is sort of irrelevant. A Trump by any other name would still stink just as bad.

But it’s interesting to ponder what young Donald’s future might have held had his ancestors not emigrated, and what kind of man he might have grown into had he been born 45 years earlier, at the turn of the century, rather than when he was, at the apex of its horrors, in the bloodiest year in all of recorded history, 1945.

In other words, at the risk of drifting even further into absurdism, what if Donald Trump had grown up in Nazi Germany?


First, a disclaimer.

As I’ve written before, Godwin’s Law is currently in abeyance. (There are many variations, but in essence Godwin’s Law contends that in any argument—especially online—a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis will eventually be made, and as a corollary, the person who first makes it automatically loses.) A bit like the embattled Goldwater Rule, Godwin’s Law is a useful brake on reckless rhetoric and sweeping, half-baked comparisons. But under certain circumstances both of those guidelines can be counter-productive, and even dangerous, by stopping people from acknowledging undeniable realities and urgent threats.

We are surely living in one of those times: an “in case of emergency break glass” situation in which comparisons to Nazism have never been more in order.

Let us imagine a Donald Trump born in Kallstadt in 1900. Bavaria, of course, was the deeply traditional and politically conservative part of Germany from which the Nazi Party sprung. Likely the youngster would have avoided service in the trenches of World War I with a quartet of student deferments and a fifth for mysterious bone spurs. After the war, his family’s fortune might well have insulated him from the privations of the Weimar years: no wheelbarrows full of worthless reichsmarks to buy a loaf of bread for der familie Drumpf! With the rise of the Nazis young Donald surely would have been among those in full-throated cheer of the hateful, divisive rhetoric of Herr Schickelgruber and his brownshirts. One can readily see him happily sieg heil-ing along at a rally right out of Riefenstahl. (Witness the thuggish tenor of Trump’s own campaign rallies.) Even without relocating his birthplace from Queens to Bavaria, it is easy to imagine Trump as part of the pro-Nazi sympathizers in the US led by Lindbergh, whose “America First” motto he has appropriated quite literally and with no discernible irony.

Hell, Trump’s personality profile reads like a eugenics recipe for a Nazi in the appendix to Mein Kampf. By all accounts, as a schoolboy he was a bully who had no real friends and beat up other kids. We see it in his innate playground instinct for the weakest and most vulnerable spots in his victims (think of Lil Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Crooked Hillary, or most recently, Sloppy Steve)….his fondness for violence, whether it’s the mob pummeling protesters at his rallies, cops manhandling suspects, or NFL linemen clotheslining running backs….his zeal for demonizing outsiders, especially foreigners and those with different skin tones…..his history of nonchalant anti-Semitism (resistant even to the incursion of Jews within his own family)…..his juvenile adoration of the military (without any sense of obligation to submit himself to its rigors) and arrogant presumption of his own mastery of the art of war (without any education or experience to justify it)…..his reactionary embrace of the simplest, crudest, and most primitive solutions to all problems, lack of empathy or any kind of normal human decency, pathological selfishness, greed, and hypocrisy, casual cruelty about almost everything……

I could go on.

In fact, one can hardly imagine a more perfect candidate to fall eagerly in line with the goose-step. It is criminally easy to picture Donald von Trump as a successful German industrialist circa 1938, with a swastika pin in the lapel of his business suit, enthusiastically supporting the Nuremburg Laws, gleefully applauding Kristallnacht, being photographed with party leaders at important functions, and—given his oft-rumored predilections—even slipping into private clubs to enjoy a little black leather BDSM with the notoriously decadent machers of the NDSAP. (Ick.)

When you look at how eager Trump is to engage in fascist-like behavior in the United States in 2017—whether it’s his relentless attacks on a free press for which he has obvious and longstanding contempt; his vision of the DOJ as his private gestapo with which he has “the absolute right” to do as he pleases; his demands for pledges of personal loyalty from the heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA; his repeated insistence that the Attorney General of the United States ought to behave like a Mafia consigliere for the White House; and, of course, his praise for the “very fine people” among the ranks of neo-Nazis—it’s not a stretch to imagine how enthusiastic an old school Nazi he would have been in 1939.

(Richard Cohen of the Post makes the comparison explicitly here.)


It isn’t hard to grasp how Trump became the appalling human being that he is. He was a classic poor little rich boy who got no love from his emotionally icy daddy, who—in a toxic combination of contradictory signals—also drummed into him the notion that he was a “king.” As a result, Donny was inculcated with the ruthless lack of empathy that is on display every goddamned day. We can leave it to the psychiatrists and the philosophers to debate how culpable that leaves him, or any of us, for our failings in adulthood. For all we know (and notwithstanding the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test), when Trump finally shuffles off this mortal coil and is autopsied, the pathologists will find a Charles Whitman-like tumor the size of a lacrosse ball pressing on his medulla oblongata.

None of which really makes any difference to the damage he is doing from the Oval Office that he unaccountably occupies and the Resolute Desk behind which he unaccountably sits.

Nor is it any surprise that Trump’s taste runs to the authoritarian. The other world leaders he most admires are anti-democratic would-be “strongmen” like Erdogan, Duterte, and of course his the fellow who most makes his heart go pitter-pat, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. His shameless pandering to the most base impulses of xenophobia, jingoism, and nationalism are all out of the Fascism 101 textbook, not to mention the sanctification of some mythical American past by way of fomenting the divisiveness and prejudice that serve him in the present. Writing in the The Washington Post, Michael Gerson puts it well:

Rivals are not only to be defeated; they should be imprisoned. Critics are not to be refuted; they should be fired. Investigations are not to be answered; they should be shut down. Trump’s defenders point to the absence of oppression as proof that these concerns are overblown. But protecting legal and political institutions from executive assault has been the constant vigil of the past year — as it will be for the next three. And we are depending on the strength of those institutions, not the self-restraint of the president, to safeguard democracy.

All these textbook authoritarian impulses are on display in Trump’s flagrant attempts to obstruct and derail the Russiagate investigation, from slandering his own FBI (and he certainly sees it as “his own”), launching spurious smear campaigns against Mueller and his team, and using the machinery of the presidency, his allies in Congress, Fox News, and the entire right wing media to try to undermine and discredit any legitimate investigation. The Washington Post reports: “Trump, appearing frustrated and at times angry, has complained to confidants and aides in recent weeks that he does not understand why he cannot simply give orders to ‘my guys’ at what he sometimes calls the ‘Trump Justice Department,’ two people familiar with the president’s comments said.”

(See New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait here on the GOP’s craven willingness to indulge and exploit Trump’s authoritarian streak. More on that in a bit.)

It goes without saying that Trump plainly does not understand that the president is not above the law, although that’s not really the source of the problem. Like a true sociopath, Trump only cares about what is good for Trump at ANY cost (stiffing hardworking Atlantic City contractors, throwing faithful allies under the proverbial bus, refusing the bolt to door to foreign monkeywrenching in our democracy even after it’s clear that our national security has been significantly breached). It has nothing to do with his (mis)understanding of constitutional law. Sitting the Very Stable Genius down and force-feeding him clips of Schoolhouse Rock and patiently explaining how the US government and rule of law work would not miraculously cause a lightbulb to materialize over his head and him to turn into a paragon of democratic virtue.

Trump is a snake whose only concern is the next mouse he can swallow.


So what is the point of re-stating all this, which is not news to anyone?

One might argue that this whole thought experiment is an unfair form of baroque speculation. It is true, of course, that there is no way for any of us to know who Donald Trump—or anyone—might have grown up to be had circumstances been different. It’s a pointless parlor game of “what if?”, the stuff of butterfly effect armchair philosophy or bad science fiction. And just to be clear, I’m not comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Hitler at least could give a rousing speech (content notwithstanding). Trump, by contrast, can’t even form a complete sentence these days, communicating primarily by means of crude tweets that read like they came from a sociopathic fifth grader. But that is precisely what his Know-Nothing fans love.

But would anyone seriously argue that it’s more likely that a German-born and raised Donald Trump would have been a profile in courage, a bulwark of democracy during the darkness of the Nazi era? That he would have rejected the racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and general demagoguery of the Third Reich and stood with the White Rose at the risk of his own life?

Maybe he would have. Maybe some act of kindness by some primary schoolteacher could have changed the whole course of Donald Trump’s life. (One could speculate likewise about Adolf Hitler, while we’re abrogating Godwin’s Law.)

So I realize that this thought experiment is both unfair and imprecise. I am sure that Trump’s apologists would consider it a perfect example of liberal “hysteria,” scoffing at the whole notion that we ought to be on guard against incipient fascism in the US. (They were cool with portrayals of Obama as Hitler, though.) Oh no, we are told: it can’t happen here. I offer this thought experiment only to put in perspective the kind of man this pretender to the throne is, how we might consider viewing him, and the stakes of not fighting him with every fiber of our collective being. In the end only God will judge Donald Trump, and only God forgives.

The other and possibly more important purpose of this experiment is to ponder not what it reveals about Donald Trump, but what it says about the rest of us.


Fast forward sixty-five years from the childhood of the bully I described in the previous section…..not the alternative history version who grew up in interwar Germany, but the actual one that grew up in Queens. That bully is now our president. What does that say about us a nation? Even accounting for Russian meddling, sixty some million Americans still saw fit to champion this ignorant cretin to be the leader of the Free World.

Volumes have been written about how the German people descended into madness. It’s become a cliché, but it remains true that at the turn of the 20th century and into the two decades that followed, Germany was arguably the most civilized nation in Europe. It was the land of Goethe, of Beethoven, of Gutenberg, of Wittgenstein. And it was far from the most anti-Semitic country in Europe (ne c’est pas, France?) There were many factors that contributed to that terrible fate—economics, the epochal trauma of the Great War, the stupidly vindictive Treaty of Versailles (see William Shirer for the full account)—but one thing is clear: it was not the result of some genetic abnormality unique to the German people. There was no lacrosse ball-sized tumor pressing on the collective Teutonic brain stem. Buffeted by the aforementioned factors and whipped up by a monstrous demagogue with a bad mustache, they fell prey to the worst impulses of human nature.

Can anyone plausibly say that the American people, subjected to similar conditions, would not go down the same black path? Current events do not provide much credence for that self-flattering view. Indeed, it is all too easy to imagine, for Trump’s rise has shown America at very near our worst.

In a grim assessment, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote:

(B)y far the most important development in all this, the single essential rampart, is how, through all this, Trump has tightened his grip on 35 percent of the country….. And this base support is unshakable. It is not susceptible to reason. No scandal, however great, will dislodge it – because he has invaded his followers’ minds and psyches as profoundly as he has the rest of ours. He is fused with them more deeply now, a single raging id, a force that helps us understand better how civilized countries can descend so quickly into barbarism. In a country led by a swirling void, all sorts of inhibitions slowly slip away. Nativism, racism, nationalism: these are very potent catalysts of human darkness.


Of course it goes well beyond the hoi polloi—the “poorly educated” whom Trump openly loves, and for obvious reasons—and the other damaged sociopaths of Breitbart Nation. This sickness is endemic within the right wing leadership in this country.

Forget Trump’s impulse toward fascism. Let’s talk about that of so-called “mainstream” Republicans, the ones who are keeping in power this man they know to be monstrously unfit and openly dangerous (as Fire and Fury plainly showed—perhaps the greatest public service Wolff’s book performed). The real problem is not that Trump is a Nazi, but that the GOP enables and protects him and allows him to behave in these terribly destructive ways for its own partisan gain. (Exhibit A, Your Honor: the tax heist.)

Incredibly, once-respected members of Congress are doing the fake president’s bidding. Witness the pathetic spectacle of Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) making a nonsensical recommendation that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele be prosecuted for the oppo dossier he compiled for Fusion GPS. Likewise, the GOP majority in Congress has shown suspiciously little enthusiasm (as in zero) for investigating a Russian attack on our sovereignty that the US Intelligence Community has compared to 9/11 in its strategic impact, yet they rush to re-open an ice cold inquiry into the Clinton Foundation? Are you effing kidding me?

Here is Adam Gopnik, writing in the New Yorker May 2016, when Trump still looked like he was gonna get stomped on Election Day:

He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was. At each step of the way, the shock was tempered by acceptance. It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.

The Republican Party’s willingness to abandon principle, integrity, and even the pretense of adherence to basic principles of democracy has shocked even those of us who long ago grew accustomed to shameful behavior from the erstwhile party of Lincoln (and Nixon, and Reagan, and Hoover). We have reached a point where no American citizen can remain a member of the Republican Party in its present form and still make any credible claim to genuine patriotism. The GOP is no longer even a political party in the conventional sense. Noam Chomsky memorably described it as having turned into a radical insurgency, but that was two years ago. It can no longer correctly be called “insurgency” when it holds all the reins of power.


If we survive the Trump era—and I don’t mean that figuratively—there will come a time when we will all have to answer for our actions or inactions therein. Did we do nothing more than wring our hands and gnash our teeth and complain about the craven complicity of the GOP leadership? Or did we stand up and force the issue? What will we say when our grandchildren ask, “What did you do to try to stop Trump, Grandma and Grandpa?”

Mock if you wish. I contend that this question is not hyperbole or alarmism. If you will tolerate one last violation of Godwin’s Law, lots of people in the Fatherland and elsewhere in Europe weren’t worried about that threat either, until it was too late.

The good news is, we’re not talking about the majority of Americans whom we must fight. As I have written many times in these pages, Trump’s troglodyte base is no more than 30% of the country. And Trump’s own human hand grenade style of “governance” has put once-solid GOP Senate seats in Arizona and Nevada (among others) in play in 2018, just as it cost McConnell a seat in Alabama last month and dealt the GOP a severe blow in Virginia in November. If, after all our gnashing of teeth, we can’t get it together enough to organize and out-vote these bastards, we deserve to be ruled by this insane clown president and his despicable followers. (Actively anti-democratic GOP efforts to suppress and rig the vote are a separate issue.)

To judge from the history of mankind, the impulse for authoritarianism (fascism, to call a shovel a shovel) is very resilient in human nature. Like hope, it seems to spring eternal, resurfacing every time we kid ourselves into thinking it has been permanently vanquished. Perhaps we should find a way to keep it alive in a lab somewhere, like smallpox, just so we can inoculate ourselves periodically as necessary.

Someone get on that please.

In keeping with the Teutonic theme of this essay, let us end with a few lines from Bertolt Brecht’s 1941 play The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. Brecht of course lived through the rise of the Nazis before fleeing in 1933, soon after Hitler became chancellor. (Popularly elected, I hasten to remind.) The play is a very direct allegory about his rise, in which the Nazis are portrayed as a Chicago gangsters in the 1920s; Brecht wrote it (reportedly in just three weeks) from self-exile in Finland. It’s one of his lesser known works, rarely staged until recently, but much performed by theater companies all over the West in the past two years. It ends with the fall of Ui, the Hitler figure, but this warning:

Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the beast that bore him is in heat again.

Pretty smart guy, old Bert.


#MichaelWollf, #FireandFury, #RichardCohen, #AndrewSullivan, #AdamGopnik, #NoamChomsky, #AaronBlake, #JohnOliver, #BenjPasek, #JustinPaul, #MichaelGerson, #SinclairLewis, #JonathanChait, #AaronSorkin, #BertoltBrecht

Behind the Blue Wall: Pete Nicks and “The Force”

PeteNicks cropped

If there is one city in the United States that embodies the current crisis in American law enforcement—and in particular, the outrage over the epidemic of racially-based, often lethal police brutality against people of color—it is Oakland, California.

It is the place from which the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was spawned in 1966 in response to the repeated police killings of young African-American citizens….a city whose police department has been under federal oversight for 13 years due to systemic abuses, longer than any other in the country….and one that five years ago saw two police chiefs resign in three days, then last year lost three more chiefs in the space of eight.

At this moment in the history of American policing—amid Ferguson, Freddie Gray, and Colin Kaepernick vs. Trump Nation, to name just a few in a grim parade of flashpoints—there is no more fraught place than Oakland, CA.

For two years, Emmy-winning Bay Area filmmaker Pete Nicks, producer Linda Davis, and editor/soundman Lawrence Lerew embedded themselves with the Oakland Police Department to document this story from the inside. The result was THE FORCE, a gut-wrenching feature documentary that won Nicks the Documentary Directing Prize at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival and was released theatrically by Kino Lorber. It has its nationwide broadcast premiere tonight (January 22nd) on PBS’s Independent Lens series.

Operating in a lean, unobtrusive style that has drawn favorable comparisons to the great cinema vérité pioneer Fred Wiseman, Nicks (who was also the film’s cinematographer) immerses the audience in intense environments that would otherwise be opaque to most of the public. THE FORCE is the second in a trilogy of gripping observational films that began with Nicks’s debut, the critically acclaimed feature doc THE WAITING ROOM (2012), set in Oakland’s Highland Hospital. The trilogy explores the interconnected narratives of health care, criminal justice, and education, using Oakland to tell a broader story of America at large. The third film will focus on one of the city’s public schools.

Nicks received his BA from Howard University and his MA from UC Berkeley. Off his Sundance triumph, he was recently attached to direct the narrative feature THE FENCE for Fox Searchlight, and is developing a personal narrative exploring the so-called “war on drugs.” Nicks’s work at once offers us fly-on-the wall entrée to some of the most cloistered realms of our society without delivering easy, pat answers to complex questions or forcing an agenda on the audience. Of such thought-provoking, challenging stuff is a healthy, informed, and engaged democracy made.


THE KING’S NECKTIE: Thanks for sitting down with me, Pete. Can you start by talking about how you got this kind of access to the OPD?

PETE NICKS: Well, The Waiting Room opened up the possibility of a trilogy, because we saw all these really fascinating intersections. In the hospital we’d meet all these cops, and a lot of the nurses dated teachers, and a lot of the teachers dated cops, and a lot of the cops dated nurses….so there was this really interesting lens onto a community through the perspective of public institutions that are often at the center of very divisive and caustic national conversations. Public institutions that are made up of (smiling) human beings….

It started with health care, and our goal there was to unpack that issue through the perspective of these people on the front lines of this public hospital and try to reframe how people engage the issue in human terms.

When we finished that film and were thinking about what’s next, obviously the relationship between the police and the community was resonating. Things were happening, and race was entering our discourse in a new way, and the police became sort of the face of that as a mechanism aligned with racism, or aspects of racism or bias that were driving injustice in our country and had been doing so for generations. So it was an intriguing challenge. How do you enter that institution and tell their story at this moment when people have a lot of very complicated views of the police…..or views of that aren’t very complicated at all, in other words, that they’re just straight up evil or corrupt full stop. So that was our challenge, to take this next step in what we wanted to be a trilogy.

And I say “we”—I collaborated on this with my producer Linda Davis and my editor Lawrence Lerew, who I had done The Waiting Room with. And then Jon Else came onboard to be the executive producer, and Jon actually was the one who pushed me towards examining the OPD. You know, he’s the guy, the legend, who’s been on the front lines of the civil rights movement and films about it from the beginning. So we took the challenge.

(NB: Legendary Bay Area documentary director and cinematographer Jon Else is head of the UC Berkeley graduate program in documentary film. A 1988 MacArthur “Genius Grant” Fellow, Else’s social justice bonafides stretch back to his undergraduate days as a Freedom Rider, producer on Eyes on the Prize, and his Oscar-nominated 1980 documentary about Robert Oppenheimer, The Day After Trinity, among many other achievements and accolades.)

So then we began the process of trying to get access to the department, which was the first trick, and that took about a year. Then we found ourselves beginning filming right at a volatile moment, which was when the grand jury in St. Louis chose not to indict Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown, which touched off weeks of protest. That’s actually when we began our film.

TKN: That was some fortuitous timing, to say the least. But especially in the wake of that volatile situation, how did you manage to convince the OPD that this would be in their best interest, or the community’s best interest?

PN: The Waiting Room really resonated with people in terms of how we were able to reframe what had become a very divisive dialogue around access to health care. So when we approached the city they had heard of the film, and had a sense of what sort of storyteller our team was and what kind of sensibility we bring, that it’s an observational approach. Our pitch was that we’re not going to promise you anything other than that we’re going to tell your story as we see it. Our process is to embed for multiple years so we can get to as deep an authenticity as possible, understanding that storytellers always carry bias with them and bring that bias into their telling.

We told that we were coming in with no judgments, and I felt for me that was true. And the only way I was really able to do that was because I hadn’t had some of the visceral, violent personal experiences that a lot of black people have had. I grew up in the black church, and I went to Howard, but I’m mixed race, I can navigate, I can live my life in ways where I’m not necessarily being profiled, or thrown on the hood of a car, or having epithets thrown at me. At the same time I understand the narratives and the stories of people who have, so I’m very uniquely positioned to both go in with an open mind toward the police, but also an understanding of the damage that has been done to our communities—particularly of color—and how those stories have been carried from generation to generation.

So the intent of the film was to try to reframe how each side saw each other. I intuitively felt that the police—the institution of the police, but also the individuals within the police—probably didn’t have a firm understanding of those narratives and the impact that those narratives had had, and likewise that the community didn’t really understand what it’s like to be a cop and what they’re facing on a day to day basis. People on both sides often perceive the other through two-dimensional narratives, and we wanted to try to upend that. I thought that was a pretty good starting point.


TKN: Did you have any kind of structure in mind going in? Because the structure of the film is pretty bold.

PN: Initially we wanted to film in the dispatch center to replicate the device that we discovered in The Waiting Room, which was the waiting room as a fulcrum or a nexus, a place where you could discover so much about the diversity of the community, and about how the institution operated, about the challenges that the institution was facing. So we felt that the dispatch center would be a fascinating stage to understand how the police operated and the nature of the struggles that they face every day.

We had to shift focus once the protests started. From the point forward it slowly became clear that we were documenting two years in the life of a department attempting to reform, at this very specific moment in time, when these protests were erupting, and trust had degraded to almost nothing, and accountability was being demanded. What does it look like inside a department to navigate that? It was a department trying to respond to those calls for change, but also trying to keep the city safe at the same time, and we were asking how those two goals related to each other.

TKN: And in the movie, it seems that the department is doing a very good job—or an admirable job, anyway—of tackling that challenge and making real reforms, especially in light of its history. Is that how it felt on the ground?

PN: Initially we got the sense of what the challenges were. They’re underfunded, as many public institutions are. We got a sense of the dynamic nature of what departments face, not just in terms of crime but in terms of the consequences of poverty. And that’s a sort of underlying theme in all my work: what are the consequences of poverty in communities, in terms of access to health care, criminal justice, and education? And it was surprising the openness that we were received with.

But this was a department that was actively being forced to reform. A federal monitor was overseeing it. It wasn’t like the department woke up one morning and said, (cheery) “Let’s change!” People were putting pressure on it in a lot of ways. John Burris and Jim Chanin were the two civil rights attorneys locally that have really pushed this oversight of the department through legal action. And also the people. Oakland is an incredibly activist city, and has been all the way back to the Black Panthers. Very specific kind of DNA to it.

But we were surprised. They were actually making some progress, they were open, and we assumed it was because they felt that allowing us access would allow that story to be told. And that’s what you see at the beginning of the film: a lot of these changes taking root and making a difference and changing the culture, and leading to statistical improvements in certain areas, whether it was racial profiling, or officer-involved shootings, etc.


TKN: Considering where the film ends up, to what do you attribute that success—that limited success—that they had? Was it Chief Whent, was it the pressure from outside, was it a combination of things? Because just statistically, things got better, or at least they appeared to be getting better in the portrait that you painted.

PN: It’s an incredibly complex idea that we’re asking the audience to grapple with, and that we’re asking critics to grapple with, and I think a lot of the critique of the film kind of missed the mark. Critique kind of needs to understand the intent. What was the intent of the author and was that intent realized? And our intent was to ask the audience to go into a very complex environment at a moment when we’re all asking ourselves, “Which side are we on?” Where activists are asking—demanding—that we choose a side, where cops don’t have a choice but to choose the side that they’re on.

SPOILER ALERT: key plot points are given away below.

(While Pete and his team were filming THE FORCE, the Oakland Police Department was rocked by a massive sex scandal arising from an officer’s illicit relationship with an underage prostitute. The scandal ultimately forced the resignation of Chief Sean Whent for his part in allegedly covering it up, as well as a raft of other stunning setbacks for the department.)

PN: We’re asking the audience to try to hold multiple, conflicting truths simultaneously, and one of the most profound truths that the audience is left with—and some audiences aren’t willing to accept it—is that this was a department that made tremendous progress and is arguably one of the most progressive departments….but on the other hand, was also a department that suffered from a moral failure of profound proportions. It leaves you with a very troubling feeling of “Can change ever take root?”

I think there are different types of change, and I think the type of failure that you see at the end of this movie is more akin to what we’re seeing now in Hollywood, or that we saw in the Catholic church: a sort of human, moral failure that has a Shakespearean quality and speaks to the constant cycle of reform and failure that the human race has been engaging in forever.

TKN: I certainly had that reaction. At that point in the film, as a viewer and as a filmmaker, my heart went out to you, because it’s such a huge shift. Editorially it’s a huge shift, in terms of content it’s huge, what it says about what’s going on in the OPD….all of it. For the viewer—for me anyway—by then I’m so invested in the success of this department, and sympathetic to what they’re trying to do despite their problems, and then this thing comes seemingly out of left field and just changes everything. I presume you were cutting as you went along, as you were shooting?

PN: Yeah. But even that process kind of got upended when the scandal happened. We actually were about to head off to the Sundance edit lab when the scandal was breaking out and we had to call them and say we can’t make it, because shit’s going down (laughs).

We had to recut the entire film after the scandal broke out. Originally we were much more examining the presence of implicit bias, the presence of racism, not just in the human heart but institutionally, how that had taken root and what was being done to change that. Ironically, that kind of got pushed aside.

The OPD had this researcher from Stanford, Jennifer Eberhardt, who is a MacArthur “Genius” grantee who had been working with them, and studying all their body-worn camera footage, and done a lot of work on implicit bias. So we had scenes of her, scenes in the academy…..all that material got pushed aside in the interest of sparing the audience a four-hour film. Maybe it will be in a sequel, I don’t know. But that made it very difficult for some audiences—and for some critics—to understand, “What is the takeaway?” Are we doomed, or are we hopeful? And I actually think there is quite a lot of hope, given some of the successes that they did have. The fact that the scandal happened amid that success is a paradox that I’m still trying to understand.


TKN: There’s that powerful scene with the community organizers where one woman says, “There are no good cops.” She’s arguing that it’s not just the system that’s fucked up; all these cops are bad. And then there’s pushback immediately from other activists in the room. But the extent of that scandal lends her argument credence, not necessarily in terms of a blanket indictment of all cops, but in terms of the illness of that particular organization.

PN: Yeah, it’s not unlike the illness that affects a community that has few resources when you talk about crime, or about gun violence, or any of these things. That’s what’s so ironic. Some of the activists are what we call abolitionists: they’re advocating that we abolish the police. But that’s really an idea that’s rooted in the notion of finding new models for community safety, which is fundamentally what we’re trying to.

But we’re disconnected now from—whatever you want to call it—the “original sin.” We just celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday and this notion of “the arc of justice” and where we’ve been, not just going back to the civil rights movement but going back to the days of sharecropping and slavery. We’re so disconnected now from those origins. How do you reconcile that with the responsibility that a cop has, or that we have as a society, for restitution, or the notion of affirmative action? The young men and women who are committing crimes are also the victims of generational, institutional injustice that has left them with fewer options. So they then make these decisions that lead them to interactions with the police, some of which result in justified use of force and some of which result in unjustified use of force. But how do we distinguish between the two? Or is every shooting a modern day lynching? And there are a significant number of people who see it in very stark black and white terms, that these actions are never justified.

The film also was trying to sort through that. After a police shooting the community would come and protest, and they’d have their narrative and the police would have their narrative, and those narratives were in conflict with each other. So what does the “neutral observer” take away from that? That moment can only be understood in the context of the history that came before it. Some of the officers understand that history and some of the officers have no idea.

TKN: You see the department trying to inculcate the officers and the recruits with a sense of that history.

PN: Right, and that conversation is ongoing, and it’s also changed dramatically. You know, I was born in ‘68, and the conversation around race in the ‘80s, when I was growing up, was radically different than it is today. I think it’s summed up by this clash recently between Ta-Nehisi Coates and Cornel West.

TKN: And then there’s that incredible scene where the students in the academy are shown a video of a fatal shooting by a police officer and they debate it, and the question of what constitutes lethal force. “Do you really need to shoot somebody 25 times?” To me it was fascinating to watch these recruits talk about that, because it’s one thing for a veteran police officer to say, “You don’t know what it’s like. I don’t know what that guy’s got in his hand when he comes at me.” But these recruits haven’t been in the field yet and they’re already bringing that attitude to that encounter. So where does that attitude come from? Do they get it from the movies or what?

PN: They get it from a lot of different places, And what’s really interesting is that the officer in that scene advocating for the use of force—advocating for what to a lot of people is extreme, undue use of force—is a guy who grew up in a poor community. We couldn’t include it in the film for a whole variety of reasons, but I think two of his brothers were killed by gun violence, and he became a cop because he wanted to make a difference. He’s a young guy who grew up surrounded by violence. So what may seem like a lot of force to some, to him the bar is different. And he’s a person of color. So I think we need to recognize that officers are coming to this job with all kinds of different experiences and things aren’t always what they seem.

And that’s really my frustration with all of it is that a lot of time these narratives get flattened out, all the nuance gets taken out of it, because people are trying to win an argument, or make a point. Not that the shooting in that video is justified, but it’s important to understand in greater depth who these officers are. A lot of the things that are happening are at the hands of officers of color. Freddie Gray. In Oakland, the whole thing that led to federal oversight was the Riders case, which was these officers violating the civil rights of people in the community. And those were largely officers of color. So part of that is trying to get people thinking differently about who are these officers are and what experiences they’re bringing to the job and how that’s impacting their actions.

TKN: You can definitely see tribalism at play in the film—not just racially but the tribe of police versus the tribe of civilians. When Chief Whent talks about the “blue wall of silence,” yeah, I get it. Same as in the military. It’s this closing of the ranks and this feeling of, “We do a dangerous, thankless job, you don’t know what it’s like, and then you come in here outraged and complain that we’re doing it wrong? Fuck you.”

PN: And that circles around to what I believe is one of the film’s sharper points, which is why you need accountability and oversight. You have to have mechanisms in place that the public trusts. I think right now that’s what the legal system is struggling with, because there’s a case, Graham v. Connor, that is the legal precedent that gives officers a very wide spectrum of opportunity to use force. Basically, all you have to do is say, “I felt my life was threatened.”

TKN: It’s like “stand your ground” for cops.

PN: It really is. I believe there’s more of a problem with the culture within police unions that the culture within police departments, actually. Because I think there’s a lot of cops and a lot of commanders—when you talk to them individually—who are reform-minded. Maybe they’re bullshitting and pulling the greatest wool over our eyes in history, but just from having gotten to know these officers and commanders over the years, I think there’s a genuine interest in reform. But the structures and mechanisms are designed to protect police regardless. You saw this play out in New York City with Mayor DeBlasio and the reaction that the union had.

TKN: I think it’s Chief Whent who says, very near the beginning of the, film, that this is a country that was founded on mistrust of the government, and to many people, the police are the most visible, everyday manifestation of the government. Which connects to Captain Armstrong telling a bunch of students in the police academy that one bad cop can destroy a department, can destroy a city, can destroy a country.

PN: I think we can change behaviors. But right now we’re much more focused on legal mechanism and accountability, and that’s when we get into civilian oversight, and federal oversight. These are mechanisms that can be brought to these complex institutions to give the public a greater degree of confidence that when something goes awry, or somebody’s rights are violated, or somebody’s life is taken, there can be some justice brought to that situation. There’s just no sense that historically that happened, or that in today’s landscape that is happening.


TKN: In the film we learn that Oakland’s police department has been under federal oversight for thirteen years—longer than any other city in America—and that one of the solutions being contemplated is putting the department under the control of this sort of civilian commission you’re talking about. At the risk of betraying my ignorance of law enforcement, I was shocked to learn that city police departments aren’t already under that kind of control as a general rule. That seems like a natural fix for such a troubled organization.  

PN: Well, it’s complicated. It wasn’t a huge secret that Chief Whent was frustrated with the reform mechanism. And I think that feeling was shared by others: that it was going on too long, and the overseers are being paid quite a bit, and it’s costing the taxpayers money. There was an Our Brand Is Crisis kind of thing there, where the mechanisms were seen as taking advantage. And if you look at the data, and the changes that were taking place, there was quite a bit of change, so the question was at what point do you remove that oversight, having been in place for so long. But then you see what happened with the scandal, and you think, “Oh, of course they weren’t out from under federal oversight. They’re still damaged.”

Is it possible that it would have happened regardless? (shrugs) You could have a really tight ship over there, but the question was, why didn’t the chief bring that scandal to light earlier? Why didn’t he prosecute it in a more aggressive way? And ironically, it’s because they were so close to coming our from under federal oversight that they wanted to sweep it under the rug. They delayed and they obfuscated. If Chief Whent had come right out and shined a light on it, maybe he would have been fired anyway. Maybe it was a no-win situation.

The scandal was a complex story that had all kinds of angles and ins and outs, and we didn’t get into all of it in the film. It involved an officer who committed suicide, the one that was having the relationship with the girl; his wife had also committed suicide, some people thought that he had also murdered her….it was a rich story. But a duality was really in play there. There were a lot of positive things happening in the department, but there were a lot of underlying unresolved issues—not just moral failures, but the racial piece, and how we talk about race, and implicit bias. Those are not things that just police officers struggle with. It’s in all our institutions.

I call it the slow bullet. You look at teachers, doctors, nurses, and how they treat people of color, how they treat poor people of color, how they treat poor white people even. It affects people’s lives in profound, profound ways.

My mom was the only black guidance counselor in the inner city schools in Boston. She was a guidance counselor for many years, and she would tell me that a lot of these kids who were failing out—the Irish kid and the Italian kid—the guidance counselors would advocate for them. They’d say, “All right, you’re not going to Harvard, but maybe we can get you to graduate, maybe you can go to a state college.” They’d support them. But the black and Hispanic kids wouldn’t even graduate. The counselors wouldn’t talk them—they didn’t know how to talk to them, they didn’t have that shared cultural language. They saw them as hopeless.

And so for those kids, it was the slow bullet. Those kids never began a trajectory that would end positively for them. So that reality manifests across the spectrum in our public institutions with communities that have very few resources, and that’s a profound problem in our society and it has to be addressed.

TKN: Right. At the risk of stating the obvious, when you don’t feed the hierarchy of people who can help those kids, you perpetuate that cycle. Those kids don’t go to college, they don’t become guidance counselors themselves and help the next generation of kids, and the inequality continues.

PN: Yeah, the cycle continues and we still have the achievement gap, and we still have 80% of robberies in a city like Oakland being committed by African-Americans, and that continues the perception of who black people are—not just among cops but among the general populace. So that speaks to the underlying themes of our trilogy. The third film, presumably, is going to look at education, and that one is arguably more contentious than anything we’ve done.


TKN: Given the extent to which the rise of Trump turned on his exploitation of racism in America, do you feel like people view the film any differently since the election?

PN: It’s hard to know. I think the election has created a more divisive environment in terms of how we speak to each other.

One of the things that really moved me, but was also incredibly frustrating, was that individually I’d had profound and meaningful conversations with people on all sides of this issue: activists, cops, cops who hate activists, cops who are supportive of activists, community members who are supportive of cops, community members who hate the cops. I’ve had very meaningful conversations in small settings. It’s when you get into larger settings that things fall apart. I mean, there’s no way that you can carry the nuance of some of those exchanges into larger settings. You get that pack mentality. You see that on social media for sure.

A protest is another perfect example. You’re not going to see any nuanced interactions among people shouting at each other on the protest line (laughs). That makes a great Facebook video, but those two people who are shouting are also capable of having a meaningful conversation away from the glare of the lights and the crowds.

I think we have to find some way of allowing those conversations to happen and for experiences and stories to be shared. That’s the only way we’re going to make any progress. We tend to work harder at trying to understand people that we know something about. So the father who voted for Trump and the daughter who voted for Sanders, they can have different values, and they may be in conflict, and I’m sure some families have been broken over this thing. But I’m sure many more families try to understand each other, you know? They know each other, they love each other, they’ve grown up with each other.

Americans are diverse. We have different values, we’ve had different experiences, that’s what makes the country great. But particularly now, with the framing of race and power in this country, it has led to—whatever you want to call it—the Ta-Nehisi Coates era. There’s a new challenge to the status quo that has evolved beyond Martin Luther King’s call that I think we are now grappling with…..and a lot of people who voted for Trump, they’re just not hearing it. And vice versa. Some people don’t understand how anybody who voted for Trump could possibly be a good person. So that’s where we’re at and that’s why we need to tell stories.

More than anything, this film sparks really intense conversation and dialogue, and that was our intent. But it leaves you with some very complicated feelings. At the end of the day it makes you realize how far we have to go….not just with our institutions, but with our values.

What does it mean to be an American? We’re having that conversation right now. We have a president who seems to scoff at fundamental values of human decency. We have questions about how men treat women, how the powerful treat the powerless…..not that women are powerless, but in some situations they do feel powerless. The girl at the center of the OPD scandal who got involved with this cop, if you unpack her story, it’s tragic. Her power has been stripped away from her for a variety of reasons that are not her fault. She’s made choices the same way that women trying to make it in Hollywood make choices. But we have to understand that these choices are not made in a vaccum. There are power dynamics, and that speaks to the title of the film, “the force.” There are people who abuse their positions of power and that’s why we have a press, that’s why we have checks and balances so that we can hold the powerful accountable when they violate those basic tenets. And that is a really fundamental piece of our democracy. If we start losing that, and the trust starts crumbling, it’s deeply troubling.

That’s why this conversation around the relationship between the police and the communities that they serve is really important, because the police represent the democracy, they’re the most visible form of the government. So we gotta get a handle on it. And that’s part of the reason we made the film.






Independent Lens / “The Force”