But right here and now, the influence of the authoritarian Left in the corridors of power is dwarfed by the authoritarian right. The clear measure is the recent foreign aid bill passed by the House.
Voting against aid to Ukraine -- 112 Republicans, no Democrats.
Voting against aid to Israel -- 37 Democrats, 21 Republicans.
The power of the Hamas Party in Congress is dwarfed by the Putin Party.
If a White person were to write such a novel, it would be dismissed as racist. But Native Son is by a Black man, a Communist, no less, wanting to rub his audience's nose in certain cold hard facts and deny them the comfort of any sympathy or warm feelings.
Native Son is the story of Bigger Thomas, a Black youth in Chicago, 1940. Bigger lives in a squalid, rat-infested ghetto and has a longstanding history of petty crime -- all with Black victims since he has never dared take on a White victim. And he ends up accidentally killing a very naive, well-intentioned White girl who was trying, in a clumsy, unwelcome way, to help him, tripping himself up with attempts to cover up the crime, and being sentenced to the electric chair.
Bigger is not a sympathetic protagonist. But the novel sets out to make the point of how circumstances made him.
The journalism in the novel is egregiously racist in a way that would be unthinkable these days. (Wright says it was based on actual stories in newspapers around the time he wrote the novel). But other than the journalists who write the stories, the White characters in the novel individually seem like decent people, police and DA's seeking Bigger's execution included.
While the novel is meant primarily to discomfort liberals who seek to acquit themselves of systematic racism, it ought also to discomfort conservatives who deny that such a thing exists. Yes, sometimes it could almost be taken as endorsing the "Snake Song." Bigger's liberal employer takes him in, offers him a job, and is rewarded by the murder of his Communist-sympathizing daughter. Right wingers might take this as proof that parents should not expose their children to any liberal notions that might lead to Communist sympathies, keep their children in line, not try to help disadvantaged Black people, and maintain strict law and order.
But the novel also discusses systematic racism and the way that individually good people can be complicit. Bigger's lawyer in vests in the rat-infested tenements where Bigger lives -- not personally, but through a complex set of corporations. And the business ethics of the day do not allow him to admit Black renters to any other neighborhoods.
And, in the end, the final third of the novel consists largely of a lecture by Boris ("Author Insert") Max, the Communist lawyer seeking to get Bigger off on a sentence of life imprisonment, and his explanation of how racism pervades the larger society and deprives men like Bigger of hope.
It is uncomfortable reading. That is why it should be encouraged.
Well, speaking as a member of the liberal left, I reject the idea of dropping the distinction. To drop it implies dropping the entire notion that oppression exists, a thing I am not willing to do. Yet this deriding of the binary distinction between oppressor and oppressed does raise some interesting issues.
I endorse the idea that authoritarianism means dividing everyone into two groups -- people who morally matter, and un-people who don't morally matter. And it means assuming that the rules don't apply to people who morally matter, and taking an hostile and punitive attitude toward un-people who don't.
The difference is that authoritarians of the left divide everyone into oppressors and oppressed. Authoritarians of the right divide people into us and them.
George Orwell, I think hits on something like this in his Notes on Nationalism. By "nationalism" he means something like what I am calling authoritarianism or illiberalism. "By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’." He goes on to identify sub-categories. "Positive" nationalism he identifies as nationalism on behalf of one's own group, such as neo-Toryism or Celtic nationalism. "Transferred" nationalism he identifies as nationalism on behalf of some other group, such as Communism, class consciousness, race consciousness, or pacifism. And "negative" nationalism he identifies as identifying solely against, rather than for, a group, with the examples of anglophobia, anti-Semitism, or Trotskyism. It is probably not a coincidence that "positive" nationalism is generally seen on the political right and "transferred" nationalism -- invariably to some oppressed group -- is seen on the political left.
I will add that the right-wing approach has the advantage of being easier. How difficult is it, after all, to champion one's own group over outsiders. But the left-wing approach has the advantage of having greater moral authority. Champion one's own group, right or wrong, is easy but amoral. Champion an oppressed group means taking the moral stance of fighting against oppression. And oppression, after all, is absolutely real and deserves to be opposed.
And that may be why right wingers keep on adopting the language of oppression from the left and claiming that they are the ones who are oppressed. The concept of a two-tiered system of justice, after all, comes from longstanding complaints on the left that our country has a two-tiered system of justice, for Black people and White people. (Or for rich people and poor people). When OJ Simpson died, ant-Trump conservative Mike Madrid mocked Republicans for being outraged a a Black jury ignoring overwhelming evidence of a Black man's guilt with no self-reflection. It took me some time to realize what he was getting at -- conservatives ignoring the overwhelming evidence against Donald Trump.
And, indeed, from the authoritarian/illiberal/nationalist viewpoint, the whole idea of individual criminal justice gets cast aside in favor of championing the right group. The longstanding tradition of White juries refusing to convict lynch mobs is notorious. When OJ Simpson went on trial for killing his ex-wife and the man with her, an all-White jury had recently acquitted four White cops caught on camera beating a Black man. So a Black jury decided that turnabout was fair play and acquitted a Black man for the murder of two White people. And Republicans are now insisting that if a Republican former President is put on trial, it is only fair to retaliate by putting a former Democratic President on trial. Turnabout is fair play, after all, and individual culpability is just an artificial construct created by oppressors -- whoever they may be.
And, just to be clear, I do not believe that to escape the stigma of authoritarianism, we have to deny the existence of group oppression and pretend that all individuals start out on an equal basis. The authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right agree that some people should be excluded from moral consideration. They just don't agree whether it should be on the basis of oppressors versus oppressed or us versus them.
The liberal non-authoritarian Left agrees with the authoritarian Left that some people are oppressed and that we should fight oppression. The disagreement is about how.
This would suggest that an offensive sense of entitlement is a hint of authoritarianism -- laws are for other people. I would also add that an offensive sense of entitlement, a conviction that the rules only apply to someone else, represents authoritarianism in its milder forms. Who hasn't at least sometimes believed that the rules should bend to accommodate our particular circumstances? Actual hostile and punitive behavior toward outsiders is the more dangerous manifestation of authoritarianism.
The alternative is liberalism, which Wilhoit defines in its broadest sense:
But they reject the existence of Israel as illegitimate and refuse to allow any differing views. If anyone who disagrees approaches the encampment, the protesters link arm and bar the intruder as a threat to "privacy." Violence on campus is rare, but the social pressure to conform and not to voice opposing views is intense. Members of the press are directed to a few official spokespeople. Other members of the encampment refust to speak to outsiders.
Outside the campus, things are a lot uglier as protesters, probably Arab, harass Jews and call for the destruction of Israel. The students on campus disclaim such things, but do not put much energy into denouncing them. And, above all, the general consensus, even among people who disagree with the protests, is one of opposition to any attempt to forcibly shut down the protests.
So maybe a good place to start is the work more at publicizing the concept of time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. What this means, in simples terms is that government * may not limit the content of what is said, but it may place restriction on the time, place, and manner of the speech. A state university,* for instance, could not ban pro-Palestinian, or pro-Hamas rallies while allowing pro-Israel rallies, or vice versa. But it can limit speech to rallies in the quad that end at a certain hour and ban camping on the lawn.
And any state can absolutely ban protestors from blocking highways. That particular technique was pioneered by Black Lives Matter and there were cries of outrage on our side when some states outlawed the technique. The cries out outrage went the other way when anti-vax truckers in Canada protested vaccine mandates by blocking major trade routes and the Canadian government shut them down (without resorting to violence, it should be noted). Well, now it is pro-Hamas protestors blocking traffic in multiple locations.
So, let's all take a deep breath and agree that yes, bans on blocking traffic fit well within constitutional "time, place and manner" restrictions, as do bans on camping on the lawn. And yes, I realize that protestors will say that their cause is more important that such restrictions. In fact, pro-Hamas protestors are claiming a general exemption from being bound by any rules on the grounds that such rules are less important than "genocide" in Gaza. To which two responses are obvious. One is that there is no reason whatever to believe that blocking the Golden Gate Bridge will do anything whatever to end the war in Gaza.
The other is to point out that this is no different than, say, right-wing parents who disrupted school board meetings and threatened, stalked and harassed school board members. Their response to any sort of law enforcement action was to say that they were being persecuted just for being concerned parents, and that their children's safety was more important that time, place and manner restrictions. Both groups are claiming that their cause is so important that the rules should not apply to them.
It is also not so different from Bill Barr saying that he considers Trump the lesser evil compared to Biden, even though Trump tried to overturn an election and wanted to execute people who caused him trouble because Biden will impose energy efficiency regulations on appliances. Or Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which argued that GW Bush's claims of uncheck powers of indefinite detention, "enhanced interrogation," and warrantless surveillance were really less dangerous to liberty than public smoking bans.** The point in such cases is clear enough. Unlimited executive power (in the hands of a Republican, of course) is not really bad because it only affects other people.
Regulations affect me.
Israel has made clear that any truce will merely be a pause to allow humanitarian supplies in and to allow civilians to leave Rafah before it moves in and finishes Hamas off once and for all. Regardless of what one thinks of Hamas, one can hardly expect them to agree to such a proposal!
As for Hamas, it has made clear that it considers Israel withdrawing from Gaza and turning the strip back over to Hamas as a precondition for releasing any hostages. Israel, very understandably, does not trust Hamas to keep its word.
In effect, each side has given the other what has been known as an "If you don't drop dead, I'll kill you," ultimatum. Unsurprisingly, such ultimatums are never accepted.
My guess is that there will be no clear, definitive end to this war. It will gradually wind down to an occupation and manageable insurgency. Eventually -- probably years from now -- Israel will grow tired and withdraw. But insurgencies can continue for a long time, and are invariably ugly.
One tiny glimmer of hope. Although I can't find the link, there was a rumor that the Hamas leadership was looking for a country that would accept them in exile. To date, they had not found one.
But apparently all of that is different when the country in question is Israel.
I also assumed that charities that cared for war refugees were wholly worthy and uncontroversial causes. Now, after seeing the extent to which many (seemingly) worthy organizations have been coopted by Hamas, I have to wonder, does the same thing happen in other wars around the world?
Just to be clear, I still hold to many former beliefs. I reject the hardcore pro-Israel crowd who insist than any criticism of Israel whatever inevitably leads to Hamas. I reject the "no daylight" crowd who insist that in the wake Hamas' ghastly slayings, all criticism of Israel must be suspended and that our only acceptable response toward Israel is absolute and unconditional obedience Some people seem to believe that Israel has no obligation to limit civilian casualties, or that if Israel thinks the best way to put pressure on Hamas is to cut off all supplies and induce mass starvation, who are we to question Israel? And Israeli setter's abuses of West Bank Palestinians are an outrage.
So, yes, there is much to condemn about Israel. I am not complaining about people who oppose the war on humanitarian grounds. I also agree that it is not hypocritical to focus on a war being fought (largely) with American weapons, financed by American aid over one that does not involve us. We have a lot more leverage to stop a war we are arming and funding than one we are not. And it is certainly not my place to criticize Palestinians in the US who have had family killed in the war and are outraged.*
Nor am I disputing that there are reasonable pro-Palestinian people. But that is not what the "pro-Palestinian" movement about. The "pro-Palestinian" -- I prefer pro-Hamas -- movement starts with the premise that Israel has no right to exist, and that anything -- anything -- dedicated to the destruction of Israel is justified.
Before Israel had fired a single shot -- before Hamas was fully dislodged from territory it had seized -- people were celebrating its action, proclaiming "Resistance is not terrorism," and chanting "From river to sea" -- a call for the destruction of Israel. The existence of Israel is described as an "occupation," and resistance to the "occupation," i.e., to the existence of Israel, whether in the form of a Hamas rampage of murder, rape and torture; or in the form of the Houthi's indiscriminate blockage of shipping traffic; or in the form of Iran launching over 300 missiles and drones against Israel -- anything goes so long as it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
And, it should be noted, cries of genocide went up against Israel from the very outset of the war.
A little background is in order.
Israel withdrew its occupying forces from Gaza in 2005. Pro-Hamas advocates argue that Gaza was still under occupation pre-October 7 because it was under blockade and had become "the world's largest open air prison." Not mentioned -- Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel and occasionally to cross over and commit acts of terrorism. And, yes, Israel did fire back and did inflict vastly more damage than it took. It is certainly fair to condemn this. So far as I can tell, the position of pro-Hamas advocates is that Israel should have given free access to the people committing these acts because, under the laws of war, resistance to the occupying power is not only allowed, but a positive obligation, and the occupying power has no right of defense. In other words, Israel, as occupying power, was required to allow Hamas to attack at will and do nothing to oppose such attacks.
Even if that is one's moral position, it seems a bit much to ask Israel -- or anyone else, for that matter -- to agree.**
My view tracks with Jonathan Chait. Israel's actions have been appalling. There is no theoretical reason why there cannot be a liberal, humanitarian, universalist pro-Palestinian movement. But the pro-Hamas movement coopted any such prospect before Israel had taken any action whatever:
Many students were attracted to these groups because of the horrendous human toll inflicted by Israel’s counterattack in Gaza. But the groups themselves are very clearly not advocating for “peace.” They are for war. Their objection is not to human suffering but that the wrong humans are suffering.
___________________________________________________
*And, just for the record, what is my view on the war? I generally see eye-to-eye with Kevin Drum. "Hamas invaded Israel for the express purpose of slaughtering civilians. Israel may be guilty of not caring enough about civilian deaths in Gaza, but they are fundamentally fighting against a terrorist group which has the announced aim of destroying Israel." And I do not see that as a legitimate goal.After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments. Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. You know this from the lesson on the conduct of operations. Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted
And again:
Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted. Remnants of the occupied country’s armed forces who continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple fact of taking part in hostilities. If, however, they commit acts in violation of the law of armed conflict, they may be subject to prosecution.
And just to be clear, I am not talking about past historical instances of an authoritarian Left, such as 19th century anarchists and radical socialists, or the Communist Party, or 1960's terrorists..
I am talking about the authoritarian Left in its current incarnation. Also to clarify, by authoritarian I roughly mean a movement that does not respect the rules of democratic fair play, that does not respect the rights of people who disagree with it, that engages in violence, that is aggressively hostile and punitive, or that dehumanizes groups of people. And, yes, the term is relative. Not all authoritarian are equally authoritarian.
When did the current authoritarian Left get its start? Do anti-globalization protests in the 1990's that turned into riots count? When did Antifa originate? My understanding is that it began in the Pacific Northwest out of the clash between liberal coastal residents and conservative interior residents, including some genuine neofascists. Violently breaking up right wing events, smashing windows and the like is certainly authoritarian. And yes, it goes without saying that right wingers grossly exaggerate the extent and menace of Antifa and project many of their own authoritarian tenancies onto it. But none of that should excuse Antifa's real authoritarianism, by which I mean not just its violence, but its desire to shut down opponents.
Occupy Wall Street was clearly not authoritarian in the sense that it had no leaders and no structure and required consensus before doing anything. It was authoritarian in the sense of having a violent fringe, and having an offensive sense of entitlement that rules did not apply to it and it did not have to respect others or care about the disruptions they were causing.
But all these authoritarian Left-wing movements of recent vintage had one notable thing in common. None of them were much interested in electoral politics. Like Trump supporters, they believed in the "uniparty" and saw any disputes within it as mere attempts to distract the masses. Their difference from Trump supporters was that they saw Donald Trump as the very embodiment of the uniparty.
Well, this latest wave of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protesters is a different matter altogether. These ones are definitely interested in electoral politics and determined to set the terms of orthodoxy for Democrats.
I can definitely imagine right wingers responding with an impatient snort, and saying I am willing to condone the most violent and coercive behavior so long as it is targeted at regular folks, but get all upset when people in the corridors of power are targets.
And I will concede that I do not expect these pro-Hamas protests to break out into widespread rioting and mass looting of the kind we saw in summer of 2020. We are unlikely to walk down the streets and see every store window smashed and the contents stolen. And I agree that is all to the good. I would also not expect pro-Hamas protests to lead to the sort of crime wave that followed the 2020 riots, again, very much to the good.
But violent (or potentially violent) movements that target the corridors of power create a different set of problems. Attempts to intimidate policy makers do affect policy making, after all, and in ways that affect a lot more people than just the policy makers being threatened. They can also drive responsible people out of office and leave power to dangerous authoritarians. Such has been the goal of the more violent precincts of MAGA.
And, in any event, the distinction between targeting regular folks and targeting the corridors of power is not as clear as some people might think. MAGA members and now pro-Hamas protesters don't just target the powerful in Washington, or even in state houses. They also threaten and harass city counsel, school boards, and other organizations much closer to regular folks. MAGA members have harassed and threatened rank and file election workers and volunteers and pulled over an AC repairman on the belief that he was smuggling fake ballots. Hamas supporters are harassing and threatening Jewish students, random Jews, and businesses like Starbucks and Google that have stood up to them.
And, of course, team Hamas is threatening to throw the election to Donald Trump.
And there is another, particularly insidious danger, noted by Jonathan Chait that happens when potentially violent authoritarians target the corridors of power. "Because Democrats perceive some of the protesters as potential Biden voters, they have soft-pedaled their criticism of their tactics. The handful of critics have focused on the political ramifications of the protest movement."
That is, of course, exactly why Republicans are so reluctant to criticize MAGA or come out strongly against Trump -- and why their main criticism of Trump is his general unpopularity and likelihood of losing the election.
Forecast: Rough sailing ahead.
 |
Look, I know there is a growing consensus that there may actually be something to the prosecution of Donald Trump for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels. But I still am not convinced.
The basic argument that the hush money prosecution is serious is that it is really an "election interference" prosecution, that the election might have gone the other way if the Stormy Daniels affair had come out, so really this is about unfairly swaying the 2016 election.
Sorry, but I still don't buy it.
Back during 2016 -- and 2017-2019, "election interference" referred to Russia's hack of the DNC and Tony Podesta servers and publication of the contents. It was clearly illegal, both in the sense that the hack was illegal, and that foreign participation in our electoral process is illegal.
It also violated certain unwritten rules of etiquette in the world of espionage, which recognizes that hacking sensitive information, though in violation of the domestic laws of the host country, is just what spies do, and therefore not blameworthy. Publishing the contents in an attempt to sway an election outcome is a different matter altogether. It is not considered to be just what spies do, and is seen as blameworthy.
Donald Trump and his supporters have attempted to obfuscate the reality of Russian interference in the 2016 by stretching the term beyond recognition to mean basically anything that can sway public opinion. Really, taken to its logical conclusion, this makes the entire political campaign an exercise in election interference since it is intended to sway the outcome. Everything becomes election interference, and if everything is election interference, then nothing is election interference.
Let's not adopt Trump's terms.
In fact, this reminds me of nothing so much as Republicans back in the 1990's getting into a tizzy about Bill Clinton and acting as if he were our first chronic womanizer President, which he wasn't, by a long shot.
Neither is Donald Trump our first candidate to attempt to cover up an affair, by a long shot. If attempting to cover up an affair is "election interference," then the term is being diluted beyond all meaning.
.jpg)
As for the recommendations (pp 931-938) I can only say, "Oh, isn't that cute!" The recommendations seem extraordinarily naive today and would be repudiated as "weaponization of government" by Republicans everywhere including (I assume) the Committee members who made them.
The Committee recommends stronger enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), require registered foreign agents (lobbyists and other advocates) to disclose their status when engaged in political activity, foreign media outlets operating in the US to proclaim their affiliation, and US media outlets publishing information from FARA outlets to label them as such. To which I can only say, ROTFLMAO. Can you imagine how Republicans today would react to any such requirements? They would see any such requirements of disclosure as an outrage against First Amendment rights and heroically stand up for the right of Republicans to accept all the foreign assistance they can get.
They also recommend the FBI giving campaigns briefing on how to recognize attempts at foreign influence and how to defend against it, and give recommendations for how political campaigns can protect themselves against attempts at foreign influence and report it. To which my reaction is somewhere between a snort and an eye roll. Can anyone imagine a Republican campaign treating such advice with anything other than laughter and derision?*
They also encouraged the FBI to be more aggressive when the victim of a foreign cyber attack is unwilling to cooperate, and urged legislation to mandate cyber security vendors to report indicators of nation state compromise to the FBI. Given Republicans' current view of the FBI, and any sort of communications between government and tech companies, one can easily imagine how they would react to such a measure today.
Finally, the Committee favored giving Congress more power to enforce its subpoenas and overcome claims of executive privilege. Somehow I think Republicans' support for such a measure would depend on which party controlled which branch of government.
Then there are the additional comments by the parties. The Committee congratulated itself on its bipartisanship (pp. 5-7) and commented, "Following the interviews, witnesses were unable to identify which staff worked for the majority and which worked for the minority," (p. 7). And for the actual report, that appears to be true. The Committee made its report fearlessly and without hesitation to discuss the most alarming circumstances.
So it is downright jarring to find an epilogue by the Republican members of the Committee (pp. 941-942) declare, "[T]he Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election. . . . After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion." Um, guys, didn't you read your own report? "No collusion" is not exactly what I would take away from it.
By contrast, the Democrats on the Committee apparently have read the report, because they follow it up with a section of their own (pp. 943-948) pointing out all the collision the Committee uncovered. They point out that Paul Manafort while he was serving as Chairman of the Trump Campaign, regularly fed campaign polling data and discussed campaign strategy with a Russian intelligence agent. George Papadopoulos appears to have received advance notice of the hack and leak operation (although he may not have realized the significance of what he was told). And while there is no evidence that he passed the information on to the campaign, it seems decidedly odd that he would discuss it with foreign diplomats but not his own supervisors. Trump sought advance information through Roger Stone of what to expect from Wikileaks, knowing that Wikileaks was publishing the fruits of a Russian hack. And Donald Trump, Jr. eagerly met with Russian agents to learn of derogatory information about Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, Trump was campaigning on a pro-Russia platform while secretly pursuing a lucrative business deal in Russia. None of this is exactly criminal but it is, as the main body of the report commented, "a grave counterintelligence threat."
There is a second Democratic epilogue, by Senator Ron Wyden alone (pp. 949-952) saying that too much information was redacted, especially about Manafort and Kilimnik. He also criticizes the Committee for not adequately investigating Donald Trump's financial ties to Russia.
Finally, the Democrats also make the point that none of the redacted material is in any way exculpatory. Instead, "[T]he redacted information makes the already alarming public findings even more granular, explicit, and concerning." But (presumably) still not as juicy as whatever you are imagining.
